Citation
Moving Ahead: 1991 Surface Transportation Legislation

Material Information

Title:
Moving Ahead: 1991 Surface Transportation Legislation
Creator:
United States. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment.
Publisher:
U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
71 p: ill., maps; 26 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Highway law -- United States ( LCSH )
Transportation -- Law and legislation -- United States ( LCSH )
Highway Planning ( LCSH )
Genre:
federal government publication ( marcgt )

Notes

General Note:
This report discusses the major issues surrounding the reauthorization of highway and transit legislation is laid out and four illustrative types of surface transportation programs are presented in chapters 1 and 2. Chapter 3 is devoted to the discussion of motor carrier programs, with special attention to issues related to longer combination trucks.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of North Texas
Holding Location:
University of North Texas
Rights Management:
This item is a work of the U.S. federal government and not subject to copyright pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §105.
Classification:
Y 3.T 22/2:2 T 68/7 ( sudocs )

Aggregation Information

IUF:
University of Florida
OTA:
Office of Technology Assessment

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

Moving Ahead: 1991 Surface Transportation Legislation June 1991 OTA-SET-496 NTIS order #PB91-212159

PAGE 2

Recommended Citation: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Moving Ahead: 1991 Surface Transportation Legislation, OTA-SET-496 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, June 1991). For sale by the Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325 (order form can be found in the back of this report)

PAGE 3

FOREWORD Crumbling highways in rural areas, crushing traffic congestion in cities, and overwhelming and competing demands on the Federal, State, and local government dollars needed to fix these problems made reauthorization of Federal surface transportation legislation a major agenda item for the 102d Congress. Anticipating heated debate on highway, transit, and related surface transportation issues, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works asked OTA in May 1990 to use the information and background accumulated during its infrastructure studies, Rebuilding the Foundations and Delivering the Goods, and undertake a focused analysis of surface transportation policies, programs, and technologies. The Committee wanted to use this new study, Moving Ahead: 7997 Surface Transportation Legislation, to help identify changes and set new priorities for Federal surface transportation assistance programs. Previously Senator Hatch had asked OTA to evaluate technologies for heavy trucks, and since motor carrier issues are an integral part of surface transportation legislation, the decision was made to undertake a single study addressing these related requests. The categorical grant programs and apportionment formulas that are part of most current Federal aid to surface transportation are extremely complex and incorporate some of the most divisive and contentious aspects of legislative decisionmaking. To ensure that a spectrum of policy options is laid out, Moving Ahead provides four illustrative, generic models, with program components that can be mixed and matched. Safety, research and development agendas, and motor carrier issues, with special attention to heavy trucks with multiple trailers, are also discussed. Workshop participants and a number of government, industry, and private citizen reviewers gave us an invaluable range of information. OTA is grateful for the time and energy committed so generously by each individual. Their participation does not necessarily represent endorsement of the contents of the report, for which OTA bears sole responsibility. Ill

PAGE 4

Workshop on Heavy Trucks and Longer Combination Vehicles: Safety, Highway Use Impact, and Other Consequences, April 2, 1991 Dr. Ronald F. Kirby, Workshop Chair Director, Transportation Planning Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Washington, DC Mr. John Archer Managing Director Government Affairs American Automobile Association Washington, DC Ms. Rita Bontz President, Independent Truckers and Drivers Association Baltimore, MD Mr. Robert Clarke Director Heavy Vehicle Research Division National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, DC Mr. Richard Corp Director of Traveller Services New York State Thruway Authority Albany, NY Mr. Jerry DeClaire Vice President, Engineering and Development Rockwell International Corporation Troy, Ml Mr. Jerry Ehrlich President Wabash National Corporation Lafayette, IN Mr. Paul Fancher Engineering Research Scientist University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute Ann Arbor, Ml Mr. Norm Lindgren Director, Office of Motor Carriers Utah Department of Transportation Salt Lake City, UT Mr. Stanley Lord Director, Operations Division Georgia Department of Transportation Atlanta, GA Mr. George McLaine Transportation Manager Canada Safeway Ltd. Calgary, Alberta, Canada Mr. Vernon McDougall Safety and Health Division International Brotherhood of Teamster: Washington, DC Mr. John Pearson Western Highway Institute San Bruno, CA Mr. Tony Preuss Director, Technical Support Insurance Institute of Highway Safety Arlington, VA Dr. Paul Roberts President Transmode Consultants Washington, DC Ms. Margaret Sullivan PACCAR Technical Center Mount Vernon, WA Mr. Warren E. Hoemann Director of State Government Relations Yellow Freight System, Inc. Overland Park, KS iv

PAGE 5

Moving Ahead: 1991 Surface Transportation Legislation OTA Project Staff John Andelin, Assistant Director, OTA Science, Information, and Natural Resources Division Nancy Carson, Program Manager Science, Education, and Transportation Edith B. Page, Transportation Project Director Jonathan Atkin, Analyst Julia Connally, Analyst Daniel Broun, Research Assistant Administrative Staff Christopher Clary Division Assistant Marsha Fenn Office Administrator Gay Jackson Administrative Secretary Tamara Cymanski Secretary

PAGE 6

Other Reviewers and Contributors Thomas Donahue American Trucking Associations Forrest Baker Transportation Research and Marketing Gerald Donaldson Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety Samuel Baldwin Office of Technology Assessment Denise Dougherty Office of Technology Assessment Ray Barnhart Texas Research and Development Foundation William Druhan American Association of State Highway at Transportation Officials Gene Bergoffen National Private Truck Council John R. Billing Ontario Ministry of Transportation Earl Eisenhart National Private Truck Council Susan Binder Federal Highway Administration Robert Ervin University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute Becky Brady National Conference of State Legislators David Ewing American Trucking Associations Sara Campbell Surface Transportation Policy Project John N. Fischer Congressional Research Service Joseph Canny U.S. Department of Transportation Baruch Fischhoff Carnegie-Mellon University J. L. Carter, Jr. Association of American Railroads Russ Fiste Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance Bill Chaddock TMC, MCI Greyhound Companies Francis Francois American Association of State Highway a Transportation Officials Joan Claybrook Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways Anthony Garrett Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways Bryan Clymer Urban Mass Transportation Administration Jack Gilstrap American Public Transit Association Charilyn Cowan National Governors Association Peter Griskevich Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association Mary Coyle National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Phyllis Guss Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways Ralph Craft State of New Jersey M.J. Hannigan California Highway Patrol Michael Deich Congressional Budget Office Rob Harrison University of Texas at Austin vi

PAGE 7

Barbara Harsha National Association of Governors Highway Safety Representatives Nick Patch Mayflower Van Lines Susan Perry American Bus Association J.F. Hornbeck Congressional Research Service Craig Phillip Southern Pacific Railroad Jim Johnston Owner-Operators Independent Drivers Association, Inc. John Reith American Trucking Associations Richard R. John Transportation Systems Center T. Peter Ruane American Road &Transportation Builders Association Ed Kynaston Professional Truck Driver Institute of America Neil Schuster International Bridge, Tunnel &Turnpike Association Lester Lamm Highway Users Federation Robert Skinner National Research Council Richard Landis Federal Highway Administration Doug Smalls United Parcel Service Thomas D. Larson Federal Highway Administration Linda S. Standau U.S. General Accounting Office Stephen Lockwood Federal Highway Administration Robert Stanley American Public Transit Association Tim Lomax Texas Transportation Institute Howard Stein Kittelson & Associates Paul Loveday Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways Larry Strawhorn American Trucking Associations George Marcou American Planning Association Barry Sweedler National Transportation Safety Board Kenneth Meade U.S. General Accounting Office Carl Swerdloff U.S. Department of Transportation Hugh Mields Linton, Mields, Reisler, and Cottone Walter Tappeiner Novophalt, America John G. Milliken Secretary of Transportation, Commonwealth of Virginia Stephen Thompson Congressional Research Service Roger Mingo R.D. Mingo & Associates Brian Vogel Association of American Railroads Brian ONeill Insurance Institute for Highway Safety vii

PAGE 8

J.D. Warburton Wyoming Highway Department William J. Watt Federal Railroad Administration Arnold Wellman United Parcel Service Jacqueline Williams U.S. General Accounting Office Leslie Wollack National League of Cities Ron Wood U.S. General Accounting Office Dennis Wylie Essex Corporation Charles V. Zegeer The University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center Vlll

PAGE 9

CONTENT S Introduction ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. Q.. ... ... ".. """"" """"" """" """" """"" """ """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 1 Chapter 1: Transportation System Needs for the 1990s and Beyond ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ." """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 5 System Rehabilitation and Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Metropolitan Mobility and Congestion Relief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Access to Rural Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Transportation System Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Compatibility With Environmental Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Technology for the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Investment and Institutional Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Apportioning Federal Aid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Federal Matching Ratios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Program Flexibility ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ............."""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 18 Performance Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Regional Planning ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..............""".""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 18 Chapter 2: Where We Go From Here: Program Goals, Structure, and Funding . . . . . . . . 21 Generic Program Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Planning, Safety, R&D, and Other Program Components . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Chapter 3: Motor Carrier Issues ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..............""".""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 35 Large, Heavy Trucks on the Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 LCVs Defined ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. ............"""""""""""""""`""""""""""""""""""""" 36 Regulatory Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Handling and Safety Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 State Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Human Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Infrastructure Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Economic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Appendix A: Supplementary Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Boxes Box A. l-B. 1 -c. 2-A. 2-B. 2-c. 2-D. 2-E. 3-A. 3-B. Trends Affecting Surface Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Fiscal issues Differ Widely Depending on State Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Sample Maintenance Award and Congestion Relief Bonus Programs . . . . . . . . . 19 Model A Program Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........22 Model B Program Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Model C Program Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Model D Program Structure . . . ...................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 Model E Novophalt: A Tough Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :; Greater Productivity Through Longer Buses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Calculating the Costs of Economic Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 ix

PAGE 10

Figures Figure 1-1. 1-2. 1-3. 1-4. 3-1. 3-2. 3-3. 3-4. 3-5. 3-6. Types of Highway Improvement Financed by Federal Aid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 State Payments Into Highway Trust Fund, 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Apportionment of Highway Trust Fund to States, 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 State Fiscal Capacity to Raise Revenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Heavy Truck Configurations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Vehicle Size Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 States Allowing Limited LCV Operations and Year First Allowed . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Triple-Trailer Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Turnpike Doubles: States With Designated Routes and Weight Limits . . . . . . . . . 41 Hitching Mechanisms for Twin-Trailer Trucks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Tables Table 1-1. 1989 Congestion Levels in Major Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1-2. Proposed Federal Authorizations for Highway and Mass Transit, 1991-96 . . . . . . . 10 1-3. Current Federal Highway and Mass Transit Program Authorization . . . . . . . . . . 11 1-4. Administration Proposed Surface Transportation Act Authorization for 1992-96 . . . . . 11 1-5. Apportionment Factors for Federal Surface Transportation Aid, 1991 . . . . . . . . . 12 2-1. Surface Transportation Research and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 3-1. Vehicle Sizes and Weight: Maximum Limits, Jan. 1, 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

PAGE 11

Moving Ahead: 1991 Surface Transportation Legislation INTRODUCTION Federal transportation assistance and regulatory policies affect the daily lives of every citizen and the activities of every industry. Federal surface transportation programs also directly affect over 800,000 miles of roads, 270,000 bridges, local transit authorities, Amtrak and State-run commuter railroads, and motor carriers. However, current Federal surface transportation policies reflect political goals and decisions and institutional alignments established decades ago, some as early as 1916. The agenda receiving priority for the past 35 years was set in 1956, when the Federal Government accepted the mission of creating high-quality, efficient, coast-to-coast intercity and farm-tomarket highways, to provide for defense, foster State and local economic development, and open access to remote rural areas. At that time, the Federal Government took on the mission of financing construction of an interstate highway system, in addition to aid already provided for other State road programs. Totali Federal cost to complete the Interstate system (probably in 1995) is now estimated at $128 billion. in contrast to its longstanding support for highways, the Federal Government did not participate in mass transit funding until the 1960s and 1970s, when it began supporting the conversion of failing private transit companies to public ownership. Later, Federal subsidies were extended to rail and bus capital investment and to supplement farebox revenues with the goals of supporting urban renewal and economic growth. However, Federal aid for mass transit, which has totaled $62 billion, peaked in 1981 at $4.7 billion and has declined steadily in real dollars since then. in 1988, State aid to transit agencies surpassed Federal assistance levels, which had falilen to $3.3 billion. 2 1 Senator Daniel Moynihan, Statement on the Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, Congressional Record, vol. 137, No. 51, Apr. 9, 1991, p. 3. 2 Uos, Congress, Office of Technology Assess ment, Rebuilding the Foundations: A Special Report Unlike these Federal programs, the United States has changed profoundly during the last 35 years: the national economy, demographics, regional and metropolitan development patterns, technologies, family lifestyles, political attitudes, and governmental institutions are all significantly different. (See box A for a summary of key changes.) Characteristics such as metropolitan sprawl and traffic congestion, growth of the trucking industry, the migration of manufacturing jobs to the suburbs, and urban air pollution are largely outgrowths of Federal policies that encouraged highway construction. At the other end of the problem spectrum are dilapidated highways in large, sparsely populated States where inadequate funds have prevented reconstruction of roads essential to providing goods and services. Regardless of the origin of these developments, the environment of the 1990s presents new and different issues and problems. Transportation programs for a primarily urban population that competes in a high-tech global economy cannot operate effectively under rules set in simpler times. Moreover, rural populations have remained underserved under those same rules. Recognizing that policies and programs established so long ago need changing now, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works asked OTA for help in assessing how highway and transit legislation being considered in 1991 could best be reshaped to chart a course for the future. This document represents OTAs response to that request. The major issues surrounding the reauthorization of highway and transit legislation are laid out and four illustrative types of surface transportation programs are presented in chapters 1 and 2. Chapter 3 is devoted to the discussion of motor carrier programs, with special attention to issues related to longer combination trucks. on State and Local Public Works Financing and Management, OTA-SET-447 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, March 1990), p. 63.

PAGE 12

Box A--Trends Affecting Surface Transportation Demographic Trends The U.S. population is projected to increase by 32 million people between 1990 and 2010, with the group aged 45 to 64 showing the most growth. The South and West accounted for 90 percent of population growth in the 1980s, and these regions will continue to grow the fastest. One-quarter of the population now lives in the seven largest metropolitan areas. Almost all new population growth is expected to occur in the suburbs of major metropolitan areas, where almost two-thirds of the metropolitan population already lives. Three-quarters of new metropolitan area households, vehicle owners, and jobs will be in the suburbs. Implications for Surface Transportation Strong demand for transportation services by the larger numbers of middle-aged persons and growth in vehicles per household will cause travel to outpace both population and economic growth, increasing traffic congestion, particularly in and among suburbs and in newer cities built without consideration of mass transit. Demand will rise for alternative types of mass transit, such as ridesharing and van and car pools, and more efficient intercity travel. Already deep, the chasm between service needs and fiscal capabilities of both rural and urban jurisdictions will grow. States with large land areas and small populations, responsible for rehabilitating and maintaining a large share of the Nations Interstate, primary, and secondary highways, will find it increasingly difficult to squeeze adequate resources from State budgets to meet the system needs. Air quality problems will intensify in most metropolitan areas. Economic Trends The shift from goods production to service delivery will continue, with production employment dropping by up to 16 percent by 2000 and service employment increasing 13 percent. The Nations labor force growth rate will slow, primarily because the supply of younger workers is shrinking. More flexible manufacturing technologies will encourage decentralized manufacturing and just-in-time delivery. Demand for transportation of industrial raw materials will drop, but overall transportation demand will expand, especially for light, high-value products. This will put a premium on speed and reliability--values likely to favor air and truck transport, although rail can be competitive in selected corridors. Changes in communications and transportation will accelerate economic globalization, encouraging growth around selected deep water ports and major airports. Maintenance and reconstruction must be assured for rural highways, the major transportation connections for remote areas. Implications for Surface Transportation Highway travel is expected to continue to increase over the next 30 years, putting additional burdens on existing roadways. Economic globalization means west coast ports and interrnodd connections will become relatively more important, as Pacific trade grows. The need for expanded capacity and improved intermodal connections will intensify around international and domestic airports. Environmental Trends The economic and political importance of environmental preservation and restoration issues will accelerate. While pollution from heavy industry may decrease as a result of economic restructuring, the challenge to control nonpoint sources of air and water pollution will grow. 1 Trends ~d ~a~ysi$j h thk bx are bwd n portation Strategic Planning Study (Washington, material in U.S. Department of Transportation, National TransDC: March 1990), chs. 1-5, and OTA research. 2

PAGE 13

Implications for Surface Transportation As the link between transportation and the environment is better understood, the environmental impacts of all proposed public works projects will be scrutinized more carefully by public and private groups. Air quality issues are likely to be major determinants of public policy on transportation and land use. Energy Use Trends Transportation accounts for approximately two-thirds of all petroleum use, an amount that equals imports, and of that over 70 percent is consumed by highway transport. Substantial increases in world energy and petroleum demand and uncertainty of supply are expected to keep energy prices fluctuating. Fuel efficiency of new cars doubled between 1973 and 1988, and OTA sees the potential for substantial further improvement. Implications for Surface Transportation Despite uncertain petroleum costs, major modal shifts are unlikely, transit and other nonhighway transport will increase. Higher gas prices although the cost-effectiveness of may limit discretionary trips and, over the long run, encourage denser land use and development. But unless legislation or world events focus on the full societal costs of highway travel and force energy costs radically higher, and land-use policies change dramatically, highway travel will continue to increase. 3

PAGE 14

Chapter 1 Transportation System Needs for the 1990s and Beyond Historically, Federal funding has focused on new construction to increase urban and rural highway and transit access and capacity and, to a lesser extent, on system preservation. Analyzing Federal spending by project types, new construction and capital replacement have absorbed about 75 percent of Federal spending during the last decade. Project improvements more closely associated with maintenance and system preservation (restoration, rehabilitation, and resurfacing) have rarely claimed 25 percent of Federal spending and are now around 20 percent (see figure 1-1). 2 State spending, which accounts for about 50 percent of all highway expenditures, also favors new construction and reconstruction. 3 gram such as Interstate and primary, the Federal Highway Administration categorizes obligations by project improvement types: new construction, relocation, reconstruction, widening, resurfacing, restoration and rehabilitation, bridge replacement, and bridge rehabilitation. To simplify, these are grouped into four broad categories: new construction, capital replacement, maintenance, and other. New construction includes all first-time construction, construction of a new route to replace an old one, major and minor widening, and new bridges. Capital replacement covers full or near full replacement of a bridge or highway system and includes bridge replacement, major bridge rehabilitation, and highway reconstruction. Maintenance covers projects for rehabilitation or repairing existing structures to prolong life and to avoid total capital replacement. This group includes project improvement categories for restoration and rehabilitation, resurfacing, and minor bridge rehabilitation. The other category captures all nonconstruction spend. Bridge Investments: What Role for Federal Grant Programs? (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, May 31, 1990), pp. 6-7. 3 U S Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics 1989 (Washington, DC: 1990), p. 72. During the 1960s and 1970s, construction of new roadways and more lanes was the typical prescription for resolving congestion problems. Most major urban areas built Interstate beltways to carry through traffic around congested downtowns. But building roads in metropolitan regions encouraged vastly increased vehicle ownership and travel demand, particularly in the low-density suburbs, and beltways now carry predominantly local traffic, despite their designation as part of the Federal Interstate system. By 1991, land scarcity, air quality mandates, intergovernmental rivalries, and competition for public Figure l-lTypes of Highway Improvement Financed by Federal Aid a 100% 75% 50% 25% o% 19801981198219831984 19851988198719881989 5

PAGE 15

capital have made relying on new construction in urban areas an expensive and obsolete policy. Rural States must be assured of the ability to maintain the roads they have--an assurance they now lack. New approaches and different programs are clearly a must. Based on findings in Delivering the Goods, 4 OTAs recently released comprehensive study of public works infrastructure, the major system problems facing surface transportation in the 1990s and beyond are: rehabilitation and maintenance of existing facilities, urban mobility and congestion relief, rural accessibility, l transportation system efficiency, compatibility with a healthy environment, and technological preparedness for the future. As important, Fee/era/ financing and institution/ policies need rethinking, including Federal investment levels and apportionment formulas, program priorities and design, needs and expectations of State and local governments and the private sector, and clarification of Federal responsibilities. SYSTEM REHABILITATION AND MAINTENANCE Across the country, highways, bridges, and transit facilities require major repair or reconstruction to maintain acceptable service levels. Because the rewards for regular maintenance are minimal compared to those for other more visible types of spending, investment in rehabilitation and maintenance has lagged seriously behind the need for decades. Currently, about one-third of the Nations non-interstate arterials are deteriorated or deteriorating. Almost one-half of all bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. The maintenance backlog of large city transit systems includes rehabilitation of 2,800 miles of track, 11 million square feet of bridge structures, and 214 bus maintenance and storage facilities. 5 4 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Financing, OTA-SET477 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1991). To a large extent, todays need for massive reconstruction and capital replacement was predictable. The 1980s marked the end of the design life of millions of miles of roadways built in the 1950s and 1960s and of bridges and mass transit facilities constructed in the early part of the century. Moreover, the expected functional life of many highways and bridges has been shortened by heavier than anticipated use (including much greater use of heavy trucks) and the neglect of regular maintenance. Local governments have often diverted funding originally slated for pothole repair, bridge painting and resurfacing, and bus maintenance to match Federal and State construction grants or to address other priorities. Small, rural communities and States with low per-capita incomes are under particular revenue stress. G In Alaska, for example, communities depend on the Al-Can Highway for connections between Southeast Alaska and the panhandle and between the State and the lower 48. They are threatened with imposition of a 35-mile-per-hour speed limit and shutdown of sections of the road by the Canadian Government, because portions of the States road are in such poor condition. Estimates for repair costs exceed the States total annual highway budget. Addressing system rehabilitation and maintenance problems is the top priority for new highway legislation. Major issues include: What Federal policy and funding changes can ensure systematic investment in rehabilitation and maintenance by all levels of government? What adjusters, if any, should be included in Federal programs to help States with few economic resources and large maintenance and rehabilitation costs? METROPOLITAN MOBILITY AND CONGESTION RELIEF Almost 80 percent of the U.S. population lives in one of the Nations 282 metropolitan areas, and the metropolitan growth trend is expected to continue. Almost all new jobs and population increases are forecast to occur in the suburbs of metropolitan areas, particularly in the larger ones 7 Travel on major urban highways increased 30 percent between 1983 and 1987. 8 s u s Department of Transportation, National Transpotiation Strategic Planning Study (Washington, DC: March 1990), p. 12-21. b SW Office of TWhnology Assessment, op. cit., 6

PAGE 16

Table 1-1 Congestion Levels in Major Cities a -. 1991. Congestion, stalling workers and truck traffic, costs American business billions of dollars every year in lost productivity and adds significantly to air pollution. The total price to the public for delays caused by highway congestion is at least $30 billion annually, and while some places are beginning to attack traffic congestion, by and large it is a worsening and nationwide problem (see table l-l). A comprehensive Federal policy to deal with metropolitan regional congestion and urban mobility problems is long overdue. Initial components for developing such a policy must include analytic tools, such as reliable data and information collection, and quantifiable performance measures that incorporate incentives or financial rewards for improvements. Actions that can be taken immediately include a combination of some additional capacity, better maintenance, and making existing roadways and bridges more productive and efficient through available intelligent vehicle/highway systems (IVHS) technologies. However, a program that emphasizes more highway spending alone is not adequate for the 1990s. Improved transportation alternatives--such as commuter rail, mass transit and other high-occupancy options, stronger regional transportation planning linked to land use and growth management goals, and better connections between transit and highways and other modes--must become parts of surface transportation programs. Growing communities have economic resources they can tap to fund congestion relief measures, and they can direct new development into relatively efficient patterns. This is not the case for older, less affluent central cities and suburbs, where congestion problems are exacerbated by aging roadways and bridges and outmoded radial highway and transit patterns (New York and Philadelphia are prime examples). 7 292-869 0 91 -2 : QL 3

PAGE 17

Such cities need special help, and State governments need to recognize the role their major cities play in the overall economic health of the State and provide assistance, as appropriate. Major issues include: How to restructure Federal transportation priorities and programs to help States and localities address congestion issues, including its staggering costs. What new technologies (such as planning aids) in addition to IVHS, can assist in managing and reducing congestion? ACCESS TO RURAL AREAS Transportation options for rural America are shrinking, while the costs for maintaining rural highways are rising. 9 To control costs and make their operations more productive, rail, air, and intercity bus transportation have abandoned service to many small towns, especially those in rural, Iow-density States, leaving cars and trucks as the only transportation alternative. Simultaneously, Federal and State programs, seeking to maximize economic benefit, generally target their subsidies for Interstate system and major highway construction, and capital replacement; county and local government shoulder most responsibility for maintenance. These costs are particularly heavy burdens for sparsely populated States that have extensive road systems, such as Montana and Wyoming, and for poor States like Alabama and Mississippi where per-capita income levels are far below the national average. Their ability to pay is not commensurate with the investment needed to maintain the roadway system on which they are dependent. As a result of long-term Federal and private sector investment and regulatory policies, U.S. transportation infrastructure and institutions provide for multiple separate modes. To the detriment of shippers and travelers, the country does not have an efficient intermodal system, in fact or as a matter of policy. Trucks compete with railroads for freight market share and with automobiles on the highways. Highway and transit officials compete against each other for public support and limited public funding. U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) modal administrators and congressional committees compete, too. While competition is an essential ingredient for continuing vigor in a complex transportation system, the trick is to achieve a balance between a healthy level and narrow, parochial feuding that strangles essential growth in productivity. The resiliency and long-term growth of the economy depends on an efficient and balanced transportation system; intermodal cooperation and the linkages between the modes will be the keys. Without substantial improvement, inefficient freight transfers will cost industry dearly, and time-consuming commutes will reduce worker productivity. A political and institutional framework must be developed to address these issues. At present, for example, the groundside transportation needs of air and seaports--major traffic generators--are frequently left out of local transportation decision making. Major issues include: What Federal institutional and funding changes can most effectively encourage an efficient intermodal transportation system? What are the best ways to maintain the benefits of competition and still improve intermodal performance? Major issues include: Determining the Federal responsibility for assisting rural and poor States in maintaining their road networks. COMPATIBILITY WITH ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS 9 The number of heavy vehicles operated by farmers and farm supply and marketing firms traveling on rural roads has increased substantially, while revenues to maintain and reconstruct the existing system are declining in real terms. For further information, see C. Phillip Baumel et al., lhe Economics of Reducing the County Road System: llwee Case Studies in Iowa, DOT/OST/P 34/86/035 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, January 1986). Transportation and the environment (air, water, and land) are closely linked in the physical world and in legislation since the passage of recent environmental laws. Unless transportation plans are compatible with environmental goals and mandates, Federal transportation funding will be cut off or projects will be ensnared in lengthy, even irreconcilable intergovernmental or citizen disputes. As a result, environmental inter8

PAGE 18

ests are emerging as full-fledged players in transFHWA, since SHRP is slated to go out of exisportation decisionmaking. tence within a few years. Automatic vehicle idenThe specific impacts of the 1990 Clean Air Act are just beginning to be understood by Federal, State, and metropolitan transportation policy makers and administrators. To achieve mandated decreases in car and truck generated pollutants, major changes are unavoidable in business operations, commuting and other travel patterns, land development, as well as, how decisions are made about transportation planning and investment. Linkages between highways and other environmental issues, such as noise pollution and wetlands functions and values, must also be better understood and processes improved for eliminating conflicts. New surface transportation legislation needs to establish processes that incorporate environmental issues as well as engineering and economic factors. Environmental considerations must be included in the early stages of policy and project planning. Major issues include: How best to clarify lines of communication and authority between transportation and environmental officials and decisionmaking processes at the Federal, State, and local levels. TECHNOLOGY FOR THE FUTURE The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) supports the vast majority of research and development (R&D) on highway technologies and has traditionally focused on research to underpin construction standards and regulations for operating safety. The Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) was established outside FHWA to promote a more far-reaching research agenda. While FHWAS 1991 and 1992 budget requests reflect some increases in the resources devoted to R&D, the time is right to expand FHWAS research agenda and related surface transportation research programs still further. Priorities include technologies addressing highway capacity and congestion relief, structural preservation and rehabilitation, and integration of highways with other modes. For example, pavement durability research, such as that being conducted by SHRP, needs a permanent home in tification technologies that speed toll collection and other advanced traffic management technologies in IVHS offer significant potential for congestion relief and for cutting down on highway delays. High-speed rail and magnetic levitation systems need further work to determine their place in the intermodal intercity systems of the future. Many of these technologies are ready to implement, but additional evaluation or demonstration under FHWA sponsorship would help bring them into widespread use. Bolstering the surface transportation research agenda raises questions about the effectiveness of the current research structure and funding arrangements. The informal cooperative arrangements now used between the Urban Mass Transportation Administration, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and FHWA are better than nothing, but a strategic DOT plan for surface transportation is long overdue. Only when such a plan has been developed, with milestones and technology transfer mechanisms included, can a steady funding stream be contemplated. In addition, OTAs research points to the difficulties facing State and local officials in using new, advanced technologies. FHWA has mounted a substantial effort to re-establish technology transfer programs that were cut back a decade ago, but additional techniques for improving Federal technology transfer and ways to overcome institutional obstacles must be identified and implemented. Major issues include: What institutional changes are needed to ensure rapid development and implementation of existing new technologies? What R&D programs are needed to evaluate next generation surface transportation technologies? INVESTMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES Acknowledging an increased backlog of transportation projects, Congress raised the 1991 obligation ceiling for highways and mass transit to $17.8 billion, 17 percent over the 1990 level of $15.2 billion. However, budget constraints make it critically important that spending is strategically targeted and that its long-term implications are thoroughly considered. 9

PAGE 19

Table 1-2Proposed Federal Authorizations for Highway and Mass Transit, 1991-96 (in billions of unadjusted dollars) 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Highways . . $14.0 $15.8 $16.1 $16.6 $18.1 $20.1 Transit . . 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 a Estimated. 1991 Surface Transportation Assistance Act (Washington, DC: 1991). Federal-Aid Levels Compared to investment needs identified by government and industry groups, which range from $90 and $150 billion annually, the 1991 Federal appropriations and those projected by the Administration for 1992 to 1996 fall far short of levels necessary to recoup a decade of disinvestment and to leverage large increases in State, local and private investment. The proposed Administration 5-year highway spending plan barely keeps up with inflation through 1994 (see table 12); significant increases are not scheduled until 1995 and 1996. Transit funding would be maintained for the authorization period at $3.3 billion annually, which represents only a 1 percent increase over the past 5 years and a decrease in purchasing power as the result of inflation. 10 While local and State officials and industry advocates are pleased by the increase in 1991 spending, they would like to see more spending drawing down the large trust fund balances maintained for highways and mass transit ($1 1 billion and $8.5 billion, respectively, in 1991). Under the Administration proposal, these are estimated to reach $16 and $9 billion, respectively, by 1996. The balances would fall between 1995 and 1996 because current legislation reduces motor fuels taxes in October 1995 back to November 31, 1990 levels--a move that would 10 Kemeth M, MWd, clirector, Transportation issues, Resources, Community and Economic Development Division, U.S. General Accounting Office, testimony at hearings before the House Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, Committee on Public Works and Transportation, Mar. 5, 1991, p. 2. 11 James L. Blurn, assistant director, Budget Analysis Division, Congressional Budget Office, testimony at hearings before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Mar. 5, 1991, eliminate the recent 2-cent per-gallon increase in the highway trust fund and the 0.5-cent pergallon increase in the transit account and significantly reduce earmarked revenues. Unlike mandatory entitlement trust funds, such as social security, highway and transit fund balances cannot be spent without being budgeted and appropriated. Thus, the annual surface transportation agenda must compete with other Federal priorities that are funded under the domestic spending ceilings imposed in the 1990 deficit reduction package. Congress could consider whether the longterm economic and environmental benefits of a structurally sound and efficient transportation system are so compelling that they warrant recalculating Federal budget priorities (or strategies). A growing body of economic research shows a strongly positive relationship between public investment in infrastructure and economic growth. 12 If the Federal gas tax were raised gradually and continuously, the flow of earmarked transportation funds would increase, adding to the amounts available for improvements, and reducing the energy consumed during traffic delays and travel over bumpy roads. Major issues include: Isa substantially larger Federal investment warranted to address transportation system needs and avoid detrimental economic consequences? And if yes, how can it be financed? 10

PAGE 20

1991 authorizations Program (in billions of dollars) Percent Highways: Interstate construction . . . . . . . . . . $3.2 . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 20 Primary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 4 Urban . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 6 Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 19 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.0 100 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4 Discretionary programs (new rail lines, modernization, and . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 36 2.1 64 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 100 Total $17.7 Table 1-4--Administration Proposed Surface Transportation Act Authorization for 1992-96 Authorizations Program (in billions of dollars) Percent Highway: Interstate completion . . . . . . . . . . $7. 2 8% National highway system . . . . . . . . . 43.5 50 Urban/rural . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.2 26 Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.7 12 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 4 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . 86.8 100 Highway and motor carrier safety: Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Mass transit: Discretionary programs (primarily new starts). . . . . . 2.0 12 Formula (capital projects, planning, and operations) . . . . 14.3 88 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.3 100 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . $105.4 SOURCE: Federal Highway Administration, Mowing America Into the 21st Century (Washington, DC: 1991), p. 16. Program Priorities Along with Federal-aid levels, the biggest issue facing Congress is how the money is to be spent. (See table 1-3 for current authorizations and table 1-4 for 1992 to 1996 proposed program authorizations.) Two issues are at the heart of the priorities debate: 1) the importance of system preservation and efficiency relative to construction and capacity expansion, and 2) the wisdom of concentrating Federal spending on a national highway network as opposed to supporting a balanced intermodal transportation system that serves both rural and urban areas efficiently. Construction or System Preservation? Despite a tradition of favoring construction as answers to transportation needs, the building bias is moderating. DOT, most State and local officials, and many highway and transit groups advocate targeting funding at system preservation and improvement to protect existing investment, improve safety, and reduce long-term maintenance and environmental costs. 11

PAGE 21

Some interest groups recommend denying Federal funding of new highway construction, unless it is part of a State or rural governmentapproved program, and focusing Federal spending on system rehabilitation and performance enhancement. Others contend that adequate funding for construction is essential to provide access to underserved areas. Highways or Intermodal Systems? Federal policy and funding has generously supported construction of an excellent Interstate highway system, but this focus has helped create sprawling metropolitan areas, and is not well suited to the complexities of the 1990s, much less the 21st century. The Nation needs a robust and balanced intercity transportation system to compete effectively in the international economy. Investment in highways is, of course, an important part of such a balanced system. However, in a time of very tight budgets, too much emphasis on highways may divert resources from metropolitan transportation problems that have enormous consequences, and affect intercity passenger and freight travel and much of the Nations population, its economy, and the environment. Furthermore, overemphasis on highway construction and capital improvements burdens rural areas with demands for rehabilitation and maintenance that they have difficulty meeting. Federal policy could promote an intermodal model that integrates Interstate, other arterials, rural highways, waterways, freight and passenger rail lines and air corridors into a national transportation system. This concept includes metropolitan networks--made up of modern urban highways; highoccupancy, high-volume corridors; transit, commuter, and intercity rail routes; and intermodal transfer centers--all integrated and linked to air and seaports. Major issues include: To promote the longterm national interest, should Federal spending priorities focus on expanding the national highway system or on developing a balanced transportation system that includes highways as one component of a surface transport network? APPORTIONING FEDERAL AID Because all States contribute to the Federal Highway Trust Fund, maintain backlogs of transportation projects, and count heavily on Federal aid, Federal apportionment formulas are important and controversial policies. The result of numerous political compromises made over many years, Federal-aid apportionment formulas are complex and hard to evaluate in respect to current national goals. Key formula factors are outmoded and hard to quantify accurately. (See table 1-5 for a summary of current apportionment factors.) Urban States protest that allocation formulas are weighted unfairly in favor of rural States, ignoring the heavy use of urban roads, and large rural States claim their Federal share is minimal compared to their needs and their key role in national highway networks. Rapidly growing States and metropolitan areas object to highway and transit apportionments based on decennial census counts, because they receive no credit for their above-average growth except at 10-year intervals. All States want to maximize their share of the Federal outlays and, at least, get back close to what they pay in through fuel taxes. (See figure 1-2 for a map showing State contributions to the Highway Trust Fund and figure 1-3 for current State Federal-aid apportionments.) Table 1-5-Apportionment Factors for Federal Surface Transportation Aid, 1991 Factors determining each Program States aportionment Highways: Interstate construction Interstate 4-R . . Primary . . . Secondary . . . Urban . . . Bridge . . . Mass transit: Discretionary. . . Formula . . . States share of the cost to complete the planned Interstate system Number of Interstate lane-miles Number of vehicle-miles traveled State land area State rural population State rural delivery routes and city mail route mileage State land area State rural population State rural delivery route mileage State urban area population States share of the cost to replace or rehabilitate deficient bridges Urbanized area population Population density within urbanized areas Transit system service and ridership SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportion, Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics 79S9(Washington, DC: 1990); and Congressional Research Service, Understanding U.S. Transportation Program Finances (Washington, DC: 1990). 12

PAGE 22

[ I L 0 I I 13

PAGE 23

I I I I 0 0 f 4 J 14

PAGE 24

Box l-B-Fiscal Issues Differ Widely Depending on State Conditions As Congress considers how to allocate Federal aid to States, two special problem types are of concern-areas with serious but short-term capital needs and those with large, long-term capital deficits. In many high growth areas, demand for transportation facilities and services exceeds immediate resources. Population increases have pushed demand for more capacity and investment to the South, Southwest, and west coast and to outlying metropolitan suburbs. State and local tax revenues are likely to grow as the economy prospers, but not fast enough to keep current with demand. (Figure l-B-l shows the different revenue raising capacity of State gas taxes in rich and poor States.) In addition to traditional grant aid, these places could benefit from strategies such as growth management, stronger State and regional plannin g, and stimulation of private investment. Federal incentives, such as seed money for capitalized revolving loan funds with repayment based on tolls or value-capture taxes maybe appropriate to fill the short-term capital gap. On the other hand, in many rural States and older, central cities, investment needs for upgrading and rehabilitating transportation infrastructure are climbing, outpacing growth in State and local tax bases. The problem is particularly acute for low-density States like Alaska, Montana, and North Dakota where planned highways are left incomplete, and major roads remain unrepaired because of inadequate resources. In New York City and Philadelphia, which are extreme examples, massive investment is needed just to maintain minimal levels of service operation and safety. Current Federal allocation formulas do not weigh the fiscal status of States or metropolitan areas. Although timely and accurate measures of a States or regions ability to pay or fiscal capacity or effort are difficult to develop, l these are critically important factors to consider if maintenance of structurally sound transportation infrastructure is to be achieved nationally. WhiIe primaryand secondaryaid formulas include State land area and system size as factors, these are, at best, indirect measures of need and do not calculate fiscal capacity, ability to pay, or local effort. In 1990, six western States with a total population of 5,6 million (or 2 percent of the Nation) and incomes below the national average were responsible for maintaining almost 10 percent of the Interstate system. Similarly, the urban area-aid formula, based only on population size, does not consider economic factors. 1 Per-capita income is the most current available indicator of fiscal capacity. The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations has developed comprehensive measures of fiscal capacity and effort, the most recent available data is for 1988. See U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Financing, OTA-SET-477 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing office, April 1991). Figure l-B-lYield Per Penny of Gas Tax in the Richest and Poorest States, 1989a $2 2 (by per-capita income) I $120 $100 $80 $60 $40 \ $20 I 15

PAGE 25

To reflect current Federal goals and more accurately relate to system needs and fiscal capacity, apportionment formulas need reform. Most in need of change are the formulas for primary and secondary roads, which are outdated and generally do not reflect accurately the most heavily used roads. Bonuses have been proposed for low-density States to compensate them for high per-capita road costs, but Congress may also want to consider modifying apportionment formulas or matching ratios (see next section) to assist States with low fiscal capacity. (See box 1-B for a discussion of fiscal issues.) The five States with the lowest fiscal capacity and not receiving existing or proposed bonuses would be: Mississippi, West Virginia, Arkansas, Alabama, and South Carolina. Major issues include: How to allocate Federal-aid amounts and balance equity, system need, and fiscal capacity, and also promote the Federal interest. FEDERAL MATCHING RATIOS Federally set matching ratios are important determinants of how much money each State gets. They are also pivotal policy issues, since high Federal matches profoundly affect State and local decisionmaking. For example, while a 90percent Federal match for Interstate construction proved an effective strategy for building a national road system, the policy skewed State and local priorities toward construction and undercut investment in system preservation, maintenance, and transportation alternatives. Similarly, because Interstate receive a 90-percent Federal match, Interstate projects are often given priority over other needed State and local construction projects. Matching ratios are used to reflect national priorities, and the Administrations interest in limiting Federal assistance for transit in large 13 Fi=al ~.PaCitY refers to a States relative ability to raise revenue from taxes and other sources. Historically, a States fiscal capabilities have not been considered in apportioning Federal program fimds, although States with large Federal land holdings have received special consideration. A States capacity to raise revenue remains a salient issue, especially if Federal matching shares are reduced. One possible way to assist the five or so States with the lowest fiscal capacities would be to include provicities is seen in proposed new matching ratios, which substantially reduce the Federal match for new transit starts from 75 to 50 percent. The philosophical basis for this is that new projects must be well supported locally to be viable and a cost-effective Federal investment. The 90-percent Federal share for Interstate was appropriate in the 1970s and 1980s, given the strong Federal interest in completing Interstate construction, but such a high Federal match for new programs is inconsistent with the notion that States can and should accept a larger financial role. However, if Congress wants to reduce Federal program matches substantially (selectively or for all programs) to leverage more State and local spending, the impact on individual States needs to be assessed. An increase from 10 to 15 percent in State matches may seem modest, but it can have enormous impacts on State budgets. Such a raise for the existing Interstate 4-R program, which provides funds for highway reconstruction and rehabilitation, would require almost $200 million in additional State investment. (See appendix A, table A-1 for the impact of a change from 20 to 25 percent in the State match for bridges.) In States where the economy is particularly weak, an increased State matching requirement could severely limit State participation in Federal programs. The local burden of higher matches could be reduced if Federal regulations permitted more flexibility in what qualifies as the State share such as toll revenues, impact fees, and other developer contributions. On the other hand, matching ratios can be manipulated to promote equity. Existing law permits a reduced State match for States where the Federal Government has large land holdings. (See appendix A, table A-2 for those States receiving a match reduction now and those that are candidates for low-density bonuses.) Similarly, reduced matching ratios could be applied to States with low fiscal capacity (see figure 1-4). Major issues include: How to use Federal subsidies effectively to promote national objectives and leverage more State and local investment without bringing unnecessary hardship. sions for them in Federal legislation for a reduced matching share. 16

PAGE 26

\ 0 E

PAGE 27

PROGRAM FLEXIBILITY Under the current categorical structure, Federal aid is narrowly focused and comes with a myriad of strings and red tape. For reasons of efficiency and because State and local governments are footing a larger share of the bills and have become better informed decisionmakers, they are demanding more autonomy and administrative flexibility. This is especially true for metropolitan and rural programs where conditions and problems may be unique and programs need to be customized. For instance, the ability to transfer or combine program funds would greatly enhance local administrations capacity to deal with issues such as port access or linkages between mass transit facilities and highways. Greater program flexibility and increased local and State autonomy has wide support, both inside and outside the Federal Government, although definitions of acceptable types of flexibility are likely to differ among interest groups. Major issues include: Which programs most reflect Federal interests? What are appropriate reasons for Federal collection and redistribution of fuel taxes in flexible grants? Under a flexible program structure, how can States be held accountable for making good use of Federal dollars? PERFORMANCE MEASURES The Federal Government currently lacks understandable and reliable system performance measures, a situation that contributes to the general lack of direction evident in current Federal policy. For instance, although congestion is a top national issue, no standard approach is used 14 Of particular imporfor measuring congestion. tance is the development of databases for recording and measuring congestion, intermodal activity, highway and bridge maintenance, and interrelationships of transportation with the environment and land use. Data of this sort are important for understanding transportation problems and their linkages, setting reasonable standards, measuring progress, and refining Federal programs and apportionment formulas. Furthermore, such measures are essential for planning transportation strategies for air quality compliance. 1A u.s. General Accounting office, Traffi c DOT is the most suitable entity to develop performance measures. In establishing an improved assessment system, Congress should be sure that the right questions are asked, that DOT has a mechanism to collect and analyze the appropriate information, and that the department is held accountable for results. Performance Incentives The Federal Government offers few rewards for superior performance of transportation systems. Federal dollars are divided up according to formula, project costs and through discretionary programs--all of which have little to do with performance. If reliable performance standards are developed, financial incentives for exemplary achievement can be a positive new tool. Since system maintenance and congestion are such major problems, they are good candidates for incentive programs. (See box 1 -C for sample maintenance and congestion incentive programs developed by OTA.) REGIONAL PLANNING Transportation problems are created and solutions stymied by the absence of strong regional and State planning to guide land use and transportation decisions. Because of the number of governmental units that operate (and overlap) in most metropolitan areas, decisionmaking is fragmented and narrowly focused, making it practically impossible to form a consensus on development goals and, thus, to build a framework for resolving regional transportation issues. Furthermore, State policies frequently thwart meaningful regional planning by limiting local authority, especially for revenue raising, and by failing to maintain a viable State planning process. Major issues include: How can the Federal Government best promote effective State /and use and transportation planning and budgeting? Congestion--Trends, Measures and Effects (Washington, DC: November 1989), p. 3. 18

PAGE 28

Box l-C--Sample Maintenance Award and Congestion Relief Bonus Programs OTA developed these sample complementary programs to demonstrate types of incentives for which all States could compete. The National Maintenance Award Program seeks to improve transportation efficiency in States of all sizes and types, and the Congestion Relief Bonus Program is aimed at improving metropolitan transporbtion system productivity. Rural States are perhaps less likely to be interested in the congestion relief bonus program, but each has at least one city that might be eligible. Peer involvement by State transit, transportation, and plannin g officials in the award process is key. National Maintenance Award Program The purpose of the program is to reward States with cash awards (and appropriate publicity) for raising the largest percentage of highway laneand bridge-miles to a higher maintenance standard compared to a base year. Funding: A $2.5 million set-aside beginning in 1993. Award criteria: Bonuses would be awarded to State Departments of Transportation (DOTS) that a Peer Review Board determines have made the biggest improvement in the condition of highways and bridges over a previous years performance. The board, which could be set up by the Secretary of Transportation in conjunction with professional State and industry officials, would establish the evaluation measures or use the current Present Serviceability Rating System. How it works: Annually or biennially State DOTS may submit applications to compete for the Maintenance award. The Peer Review Board would select winners in two to three divisions; the divisions could be based on size of the system, fiscal capacity, or percent of the system that is rural or urban. The award winners would have their techniques and strategies showcased so that other States could benefit. States may spend awards on any State maintenance-related program. Congestion Relief Bonus Program 1 The purpose of the program is to provide a cash award incentive to metropolitan areas to reduce congestion and improve travel time and air quality (or make statutory or programmatic progress toward these goals). Involvement of highway, transit, and Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) officials in the program development is key. I Funding: One-half percent would be set aside, beginning in 1993 and increasing to as much as 1 percent by 1996, from the proposed highway or metropolitan program apportionments. Eligibility: An MPO would be the only eligible recipient of the bonus grants. To qualify for the bonus award competition an MPO must have a Federal, State, and locally approved congestion reduction and management plan including a supporting data collection and analysis program that follows Federal guidelines--to be developed by the Secretary. Earning bonus points: An MPO earns bonus points for quantifiable reductions in metropolitan area congestion (see possibilities below) and, for some nonquantifiable but supporting accomplishments (see possibilities below.) The details of this step would be worked out by the Secretary between 1992 and 1993 along with congestion management data collection and analysis guidelines. Quantifiable improvements that earn bonus points increased vehicle occupancy rate (one point per X percent increase); decreased travel time (one point per X second decrease on designated arterial); decreased hours per month of severe congestion; l improved air quality; -. I 19

PAGE 29

l increased ridership P er capita and in the off-peak and better on-time performance of transit, or other appropriate transit indices; and l improved level of service for major highways based on adopted standards. Nonquantifiable achievements that earn bonus points l l l l l approved congestion pricing policy and implementation plan for highways and bridges (note: prohibiting truck travel by time of day is not an effective form of congestion control); approved congestion pricing policy and implementation plan for parking; approved long-range metropolitan land-use development plan to support congestion relief policies; approved 5-year capital improvement program for surface transportation; and private sector commitment to participate in congestion relief evidenced by specific agreements for transit allowance if parking is provided free, for example. How it could work: MPOs would compete for bonus points with other MPOs of comparable size. There could be four categories; the largest would be 3 million and over and the smallest up to 250,000. The value of each bonus point would be determined by the number of points earned in each size category divided by available funds. Once having earned a bonus point, an MPO continues to receive the cash bonus each year throughout the authorization period unless its performan ce deteriorates. The MPOs objective is to accumulate bonus points over the years as a result of continuous improvement. Therefore, it would be important to increase program finding each year because as more points are awarded each is worth less, unless the base is increased. MPOs could spend the bonus funds on enhancing any congestion relief or mobile source reduction air quality related activities. SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991. 20

PAGE 30

Chapter 2 Where We Go From Here: Program Goals, Structure, and Funding Addressing the issues outlined in chapter 1 will not be easy, and will require vision, difficult political compromises, restructuring of established program funding and institutional relationships, and, in all likelihood, some changes in lifestyles. However, unless we deal with the problems now, Americans will bear the costs of inefficient and unproductive transportation--through traffic delays, unhealthy air quality, inadequate access to transportation services especially in rural areas, higher prices, and a lower standard of living. Reauthorization of surface transportation legislation offers Congress the chance to shape a new program aimed at maintaining structurally sound, safe transportation networks and developing an efficient intermodal system that promotes a vigorous economy and an improved quality of life. Although many agree that Federal surface transportation legislation needs revamping, opinions differ on program goals and structure. The Administration led off the legislative process in February with its proposed 1991 Surface Transportation Assistance Act (subsequently referred to as 1991 STAA), introduced as S. 610 and H.R. 1351. This proposed legislation substantially restructures the existing program and reduces the Federal share in almost all programs, although it maintains a highway focus and reemphasizes mass transit resources. Many transportation and environmental interest groups have also made recommendations. To help Congress sort through the numerous options and the tradeoffs associated with each, OTA developed four generic program models, A, B, C, and D, reflecting a spectrum of goals. 1 proPo~als have been developed by the Urface Transportation Policy Project, the Coalition for Transit Now, the Campaign for New Transportation Alternatives, Federal Highways for the Future, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and the American Public Transit Association. Most were released in Spring 1991. Model A is the most similar to the existing program, while Model D represents fundamental changes in program structure. However, all models place higher priority on system preservation, operational improvements, and intermodal linkages than is currently given. Three models assume a 5-year Federal spending level of $105.4 billion, which is the Administrations budget for highway and transit programs and within the agreed on budget ceiling; Model D proposes higher Federal spending. To illustrate how the policy goals of each model could be implemented through Federal spending, each model includes possible spending allocations for major programs. The intent is not to make recommendations, but rather to provide sample programs with components that can be mixed and matched and that serve as subjects for debate. Briefly summarized below, the models and their illustrative allocations of program funds are described more fully in boxes 2-A, 2-B, 2-C, and 2-D. Essential program components, such as land use and transportation planning, environmental concerns, safety, and research and development (R&D), that will be part of any reauthorization legislation, are presented later in this chapter. GENERIC PROGRAM MODELS Model A (see box 2-A) retains the current basic program categories and provides for a strong Federal role, preserving the present single mode (separate highway and mass transit programs) administrative structure. It emphasizes preserving the existing system by modifying project eligibility to fund highway reconstruction, maintenance, and repair. Funding for rural secondary programs is raised substantially. It also widens the funding eligibility of operational improvements, particularly those aimed at congestion relief. To address metropolitan area and urban problems, mass transit, urban highway, and bridge programs receive a higher funding priority than they do currently. The tradeoffs of this model include: no increase 21

PAGE 31

. Box 2-A--Model A Program Structure Model A, based on the current structure, has six major categorical programs. Interstate: Complete construction of the planned 43,000-mile system at current match; permit funding of maintenance and operational improvements; set Federal match at 65 percent for construction of new roads or capacity; 80 percent for reconstruction, repair, maintenance, and operational improvements; and 35 percent for toll facilities. Primary: Retain major features of current program; permit funding for maintenance and operational improvements, including congestion relief; set Federal match at 60 percent for new construction, 35 percent for toll roads, and 75 percent for other program components; and initiate apportionment reform. Secondary: Increase funding; retain major features of current program; permit funding for maintenance and operational improvement; set Federal match at 60 percent for new construction and 75 for other program components; and initiate apportionment reform. Urban: Increase funding; retain major features of current program; permit operational improvements with priority to congestion relief strategies. Bridge: Require bridge management program; reform bridge program program funding. funding for maintenance and apportionment; and increase Transit: Retain major features of current program; emphasize capital replacement and increase funding to reflect transits growing role in relieving congestion and environment problems. Illustrative Expenditures and Matching Requirements 5-year Federal Federal expenditures share Programs (in billions) a (percent) b Interstate $35.0 90-65% Primary 15.0 75-60 Secondary 5.0 75-60 Urban 9.0 75 Bridge 11.0 75 Safety 2.4 75 Transit 18.0 75-60 Other 10.0 75 Total $105.4 a Research funds come primarily from set-asides from the first four State-aid programs. b Where there is a range, the lower percentage is for new construction. Category includes highway and motor carrier safety. 22

PAGE 32

in flexibility to adjust to State and local priorities and no emphasis on intermodal coordination. Existing interest groups and rural areas are more likely to be enthusiastic about this model than urban or regional governments and those who feel the present program structure is outmoded. Model B (see box 2-B) and program expenditures are based on the 1991 STAA proposed legislation. 2 The National Highway System (NHS), planned to be about 165,000 miles, is the top Federal priority for the 5-year program, absorbing 60 percent of funding, if Interstate completion is included. The purpose of NHS is to connect underserved parts of the country through construction of additional roadways or through upgrading the capacity and service of existing highways. The Urban/Rural Program, designed as a State block grant, receives 25 percent of total funding. The States, with cooperation from local officials, are responsible for allocating Urban/Rural funds and overseeing programs. The Federal matching share for NHS is substantially higher than for Urban/Rural programs and transit. State apportionment formulas for NHS and Urban/Rural are tied closely to fuel consumption taxes, an index used as a surrogate for highway use. System preservation is emphasized in some situations over new construction, and for the first time funding is provided for maintenance (on Interstate only) and operational improvements to address congestion. Highway system renovation and operational improvements receive a higher match than new capacity construction. Specifically, maintenance of Interstate highways is eligible for funding under the National Highway System program, a needed boost for rural States, and 3-R projects (restoration, rehabilitation, and resurfacing) retain 90 percent Federal funding. However, the fourth R (reconstruction) projects, which usually involve new construction like additional lanes and interchanges, drop from a 90 percent to 75 percent Federal match. State management programs are required for safety, pavement, congestion, and bridges. Highway projects in urbanized areas that increase capacity must be consistent with the State congestion management plan. Transit funding is held constant for the authorization period, but cuts occur in grant programs for large systems and new starts. The primary source of funding for formula programs is shifted to the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund, and a flexibility provision permits funding either highway or transit programs from this source. The language concerning land-use planning and air quality compliance is a step in the right direction, but it does not specifically require a State transportation plan and leaves lines of authority undefined. The tradeoffs associated with this model include: the appropriateness of a program that moves America Into the 21st Century N with an intercity highway plan as the conceptual framework of a national transportation policy; the Federal commitment and spending priorities necessary to support a 165,000-mile national highway system and that allocate only 25 percent of Federal funding to Urban/Rural problems; the low priority given to transit; and the question of whether States can afford substantially higher matching ratios. Transit groups and representatives of urbanized regions are unlikely to support this model. Model C is one type of program configuration using transportation and technology analysis reported in Delivering the Goods. 3 Model C exemplifies a transitional program toward a future, fully intermodal system that addresses current mobility and environmental problems (see box 2-C). It emphasizes system preservation, metropolitan and rural needs, developing an integrated, balanced urban and intercity transportation system, and increasing system efficiency. Local decisionmaking is 2 For more specific information see S. 610 an d H.R. 1351 and supporting documents, U.S Department of Transportation, Federal Highwa y Administration Facts Sheets, 1991; and U.S Department of Transportation, Federal Highwa y Administration, Moving America Into the 21st Century (Washington, DC: 1991). 3 U. S. Congress Office of Technolog y Assessment, Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Financing, OTASET-477 (Washington, DC: U.S. Governmen t Printing Office, April 1991), p. 201. 23 292-869 0 91 -3 : QL 3

PAGE 33

Box 2-B-Model B (1991 Surface Transportation Assistance Act) Program Structure Highway provisions establish three major programs: National Highway System: Consists of Interstate system and at least 100,000 miles of other arteria be determined by the States and the Federal Highway Administration. Eligible projects include construction, reconstruction, maintenance for Interstate, operational improvements, intermodal linkages, and to Federal project approval is required, and 15 percent is transferable to Urban/Rural at a lower Apportionment is by formula: 70 percent State motor fuel use, and 15 percent each State total public mileage and land area with adjustments for low density and Federal land holdings. Each State is g 0.5 percent of total program funds. Bridge Improvement Program: Funds projects based on the relative level of serviceability at percent Federal share, includes discretionary funds for high-cost projects, and requires insecpti management system for National Highway System bridges. Urban/Rural Program: Gives States flexibility in funding and administering projects under br Federal guidelines. Eligible projects include construction, rehabilitation, operational and managemen improvements, and planning and startup funds for traffic management and demand management. be applied to transit projects. Apportionment is based on each States contribution to the Highway T Fund with a bonus program for innovative solutions to congestion, air quality, or rural access. P congestion, and bridge and safety management programs are required. Transit Program: Holds Federal spending steady, maintains current structure and broadens project eligibility but operating aid to large cities and appropriations from the general fund; begins to rebuild transit re development programs Expenditures and Matching Requirements Based on the 1991 Surface Transportation Assistance Act Programs 5-year Federal Federal expenditures share b (in billions] (percent) Interstate Completion $7. 0 90-75 % National Highway System 44.0 90-75 Urban/Rural 22.0 60 Bridge 11.0 75 Interstate substitution and Federal lands 3.0 Safety c 2.4 60 I Transit 16. 0 60-50 I Total $105.4 a Research finds come primarily from set-asides from the first four State-aid programs and the Office of the Secretary of Transportation. b Where there is a range, the lower percentage is for new construction. c Category includes highway and motor carrier safety. -_.... 24

PAGE 34

Box 2-C--Model C Program Structure Highway provisions focus on three programs in addition to Interstate: National/interstate Highway System: Consists of existing 43,000 Interstate miles, plus up to 10 percent additional miles in undeserved corridors and regions. Eligible projects include repair, reconstruction, maintenance, operational improvements, traffic management and control, development of intermodal links, and limited new construction. Twenty percent is transferable to Metropolitan and Rural programs. Projects must conform to Federal standards and to adopted State transportation and air quality improvement plans. Metropolitan Program: Funds surface transportation system improvements in Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas and other urban areas (population over 50,000). Eligible projects include repair, maintenance, congestion relief, operational improvements, traffic management and control, transit capital and operating costs, intermodal linkages, and some new construction. The programs could be administered by regional metropolitan planning organizations in cooperation with the State; projects must conform to adopted State or regional transportation and air quality improvement plans. A restructured apportionment formula could be based on data collection and analysis programs that establish measures of need, equity, and desired performance. Rural Program: Funds highway rehabilitation, repair, maintenance, limited new construction, and allows flexibility to address other unique needs of rural areas. Bonuses could be provided for the States with low fiscal capacity. Bridge Program: Facilitates systematic bridge repair, reconstruction, and preventive maintenance. Transit Program: Maintains current structure; increases research and development funding, especially strategies that effectively serve suburban areas, institutionalizes preventive maintenance, and increases funding to reflect transits role in relieving metropolitan congestion and air pollution. Illustrative Expenditures and Matching Requirements 5-year Federal expenditures Programs (in billions) Interstate $25.0 Metropolitan 29.0 Rural 8.0 Bridge 11.0 Research, planning and special programs 10.0 Safety b 2.4 Transit 20.0 Total $105.4 a Where there is a range, the lower percentage is for new construction. b Category includes highway and motor carrier safety. Federal share a 90-70% 75-60 75-60 75-60 75 75-60 25

PAGE 35

strengthened, and State/local long-range planning and financing coordination is required. It could add bonuses for low density and the poorest States. Federal assistance for completing and maintaining the Interstate highway system and addressing the congestion and environmental issues of metropolitan areas (where almost 60 percent of the population live) are top priorities. The level of investment in rail and bus transit and high-occupancy travel of all sorts is raised to reflect the key role it can play in relieving these problems. Rural interests are protected by maintaining a separate program and funding is increased over current levels for improving rural accessibility and intercity travel and road maintenance. Because the next 5 years will be a retooling period from a single-mode focus to building and maintaining a more balanced intermodal system, changes in apportionment formulas and matching ratios in this model need to reflect these goals. The major tradeoffs of this program are that Interstate and regional highway spending, particularly for new construction, is not emphasized, and Federal spending control is considerably less. Although current metropolitan socioeconomic and land-use trends and public policy encourage singleoccupancy automobile trips, this model places heavy emphasis on planning and development of intermodal systems and modal alternatives. It assumes that with stronger support at the Federal and State levels, Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) will overcome some of the political rivalries that limit their effectiveness now, but they may not succeed in this. State long-range planning must consider rural areas whose needs may be downgraded as urban representation in legislatures increases. Many interest groups will dislike the emphasis in this model on more centralized planning. Model D takes several further steps toward an integrated national transportation system. The underlying premise of Model D is a unified Federal surface transportation program, under which the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) combines the modal administrations of highways, mass transit, and passenger rail into one entity that operates under a unified budget. State transportation agencies would be encouraged to follow a similar pattern. The majority of Federal funds would be allocated to States in the form of Surface Transportation Grants (see box 2-D). In accordance with State-developed, intermodal system plans, which are reviewed or approved at the Federal level for consistency with State air quality improvement plans, each State would decide how grant funds would be apportioned for highways, rural roads, bridges, transit, and a wide range of high-occupancy travel options. State autonomy would be abridged only if DOT decided the State planning process was deficient or the Interstate system was not being maintained to standards. Close cooperation would be encouraged at all levels of government for the planning, funding, and operations of surface transportation and air and water transport. As part of program integration, the Highway Trust Fund would be restructured as the Surface Transportation Fund, eliminating the division between highways and transit. In developing an apportionment process for Surface Transportation Grants, Congress could consider factors such as fiscal capacity, incentives for congestion reduction, and the severity of air quality problems. To tackle the backlog of rehabilitation and maintenance projects and to ensure the economic payoff of improved transportation efficiency, Model D increases funding 20 percent over projected budget ceilings for surface transportation. The new monies reflect the environmental, safety, and broad socioeconomic benefits of more efficient intermodal transportation. Potential sources of revenue would be a gradually increased Federal gas tax, a new tax earmarked for integrated transportation, and timely spending of the existing Trust Fund balances. The major tradeoffs of this program are that it completes the financial and administrative integration of Federal-aid to surface transportation in one step and transfers most program approval responsibility to the States. Such changes pose major political hurdles since they require restructuring established and familiar program funding and institutional relationships, 26

PAGE 36

130x 2-D--Model D Program Structure The principal components of this model are an Interstate Completion and the Surface Transportation Grant Programs: Interstate Completion Program: Would consist of completing Interstate construction projects already begun or authorized and a limited number of additional miles in underserved corridors. The Federal share is 90 percent. Construction must comply with Federal standards. Surface Transportation Grant Program: Consolidates funding and program administration for highways, bridges, transit, commuter rail, and intermodal linkages. State Departments of Transportation administer grant finds, which are completely interchangeable once transportation, air quality, congestion, pavement, and bridge management plans are in place. Repair, maintenance, congestion relief, operational improvements, traffic management and control, transit capital and operating costs, intermodal linkages, and some new construction programs in urban and rural areas are eligible for funding. Administering agents could be metropolitan planning organizations or local governments in towns and counties under 50,000 in cooperation with the State. Projects should conform to adopted State transportation and air quality improvement plans and metropolitan transportation improvement programs. The apportionment formula could be based on data and analysis that establish measures of need and desired performance. Factors such as fiscal capacity, population density, and severity of air quality problems could be considered. Funding is 20 percent higher than current ceilings. illustrative Expenditures and Matching Requirements 5-year Federal Federal expenditures sharea Prowwms jin billions) @2xQM Interstate Completion $14 90-70% Surface Transportation 98 75-60 Grant Program (highway, transit and para-transit, rail, and bridge) Research, planning and special programs 12 Safety b Total $127 75 a Where there is a range, the lower percentage is for new construction. b Category includes highway and motor carrier safety. 27

PAGE 37

including a significant narrowing of congressional program and project authority. Furthermore, to accelerate repair of existing systems, the model proposes a funding level 20 percent higher than the budget ceiling permits, necessitating changes in congressional priorities. PUNNING, SAFETY, R&D, AND OTHER PROGRAM COMPONENTS Compliance with and support for Federal safety and environmental laws are basic components of any reauthorization legislation. Close cooperation between Federal, State, and local transportation and environmental officials will be necessary to achieve compliance with the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Information and planning tools to help transportation officials toward this end, safety programs, and R&D are other essential programs for urban and rural surface transportation. Land-Use and Transportation Planning While State land-use and transportation planning are crucial to efficient and productive transportation, few States have effective growth management planning programs. Local decision makers do not have control over activities of neighboring jurisdictions, and without a State requirement, regional consensus on development goals rarely develops. Moreover, State policies frequently limit local authority, especially for revenue raising, thereby thwarting meaningful regional planning and budgeting. Since most States lack long-range transportation planning programs, MPOs funded by DOT, are largely responsible for the regional transportation planning being done now. 4 The y are charged with preparing the federally required Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) which is a regions principal transportation planning instrument. Despite this potentially important role, their performance is generally uneven--hampered by severe budget constraints, local political rivalries, and lack of fiscal 4 For further information, see U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Rebuilding the Foundations: A Special Report on State and Local Public Works Financing and Management, OTASET-447 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, March 1990), chs. 3 and 4. independence and State executive and legislative support. To change these conditions at the State and local levels, new surface transportation legislation could: l Require States to prepare and adopt a 5year comprehensive, multimodal State transportation and financing plan (in consultation with MPOs) to guide State investment, development, and air quality improvement programs Plan components should include land-use and growth management, congestion, safety, maintenance, and rural accessibility. The plan would cover all publicly and privately funded construction and rehabilitation projects. Annual or biennial reviews would ensure a realistic framework for annual updating of local TIPs and development of local plans for nonmetropolitan areas. l Require States to identify a single MPO in each metropolitan statistical area, possibly with coterminous boundaries to those of the regional air quality district. In multi-State metropolitan areas, incentives for a single MPO or a strong regional compact will be needed. l Increase Federal funding for planning, including the required TIP preparation, long-range, land-use planning (growth management in developing regions), and regional data collection and analysis. (See program allocation tables in the four generic models for specific sources of Federal funds.) This capability will be essential for States to allocate resources equitably among urban and rural areas and as a basis for preparing and evaluating air quality improvement plans. Regional congestion relief programs, approved and administered by MPOs, could receive a higher Federal match. l Encourage States to use MPOs to plan for regional transit and commuter rail facilities, as well as ground links with rail terminals and air and seaports. Safety Motor carrier safety and heavy tractor-trailer combination truck safety are discussed in detail in chapter 3, but an in-depth review of other aspects of surface transportation safety 28

PAGE 38

programs is beyond the scope of this document. However, OTAs research for its transportation safety studies and for Delivering the Goods points to the need for addressing safety by improving the physical condition of roadways and bridges. In addition, vehicle safety activities of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) need to be integrated more fully with the safety programs of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), especially in the area of human factors. DOT data collection programs for safety purposes and for use in regulatory and program analysis need to be made more systematic and comprehensive, especially in the areas of freight and passenger movements, to further understanding of accident rates. Funding for highway safety could be raised over current levels to reflect increased vehicle ownership and travel. Priorities for expanded Federal effort include changes to safety programs necessary to accommodate an aging population of drivers and pedestrians, the large disparity between truck and car sizes, and the aging highway network. The Federal program match at 75 percent is a reasonable level, reflecting the Federal responsibility for safety regulation. The concept of a Federal incentive safety bonus program, as proposed in the 1991 STAA is an excellent one. However, to be most effective, such incentives should be used to promote safety both through highway improvements (such as better signage, railroad grade crossings, and lane changes), and through improvements to driver and pedestrian safety (such as a decrease in drunk driving and the pedestrian injury and death rates). Current programs focus on one type or another, reflecting overly narrow interest group and congressional committee concerns. Research and Development At present, Federal R&D is funded primarily through the appropriated budgets for each separate mode (see table 2-l). OTA did not look in detail at surface transportation agency R&D activities related to intermodal surface transportation, but most of the few projects that exist are housed in the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA); the rest are scattered throughout the department. Congress could consider requiring DOT to undertake a comprehensive, departmentwide, in-depth review of surface R&D programs with the goal of developing a strategic R&D plan. Such an effort is long overdue. DOTs statement of R&D policy 5 is a general, broad statement of principles, not a strategic plan for meeting the future. To make best use of scarce dollars, the work of the Federal Railroad Administration (magnetic levitation), UMTA (mass transit and commuter rail, as well as some smart car/smart highway work), NHTSA, and FHWA must be coordinated and viewed as components of a strategy for moving toward an efficient intermodal transportation system. Highway R&D FHWA R&D is funded almost entirely through program set-asides from the Highway Trust Fund, with much of the money funneled to the States or entities outside FHWA. For example, the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) receives 0.25 percent of each States apportionment. SHRP, whose agenda is weighted heavily toward paving materials durability research, broke new ground by actively involving State DOTS in planning and execution of its R&D program, an effort that is expected to pay off in facilitating technology transfer. The work being done under SHRP is scheduled to be integrated into FHWAs research program at the end of the programs 5-year life. When that occurs, ensuring that program integration and close cooperation with the States continues is vitally important. These programs are of particular importance to States with large maintenance responsibilities. Other highway R&D programs include FHWA contract and staff research and the Highway Planning and Research Program (HP&R), which is funded through a 1.5 percent State set-aside, out of which the SHRP funds are also allocated. Some aspects of these programs have been disappointing. For example, the HP&R Program provides States with resources for their highway planning and information gathering efforts, but States are able to devote only a small fraction of this money to actual research. s U.S. Department of Transportation, A Statement of U.S. Department of Transportation Research and Development Policy, unpublished 29

PAGE 39

Table 2-l-Surface Transportation Research and Development FY 1991 funding Agency (millions of dollars) Funding source Comments Federal Highway Administration Highway Planning and Research $51 A portion of 1.5 percent set-aside Supports State and local Program of Federal-aid instruction planning, traffic measurefunds from the Highway Trust ment, and other research Fund National Cooperative Highway 8 5.5 percent set-aside of HP&R Contract research managed Research Program funds by Transportation Research Board (National Research Council) 27 b Highway Trust Fund Contract and staff research 10 percent inhouse research; balance in contracts Strategic Highway Research Program Federal Railroad Admlnlstratlon 30 0.2 percent set-aside from Highway Trust Fund 15 From appropriated budget Contract R&D focused on highway construction; 5-year program Inhouse and contract R&D (does not include $10 million for magnetic levitation rail initiative) Urban Mass Transportation 2 From appropriated budget Development projects Adminlstration National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Highway safety, motor vehicle, 23 From appropriated budget Highway vehicle and and other research pedestrian safety National Center for Statistics 13 From appropriated budget Data collection and anafysis and Analysis ~otalfunds forthe Highway Planning and Research (HP&R) Program are about $153 million, two-thirds of which is used for planning. The portion used for research is $53 million. %otal indudes $8.8 million for intelligent vehicldhighway systems and R&D. SOURCE: Office of Technohxjv Assessment, 1991, based on information from the Federal Highway Administration and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Transit R&D Federal support for transit R&D has been drastically cut back over the past dozen years, plummeting from $52 million in 1980 to $2 million in fiscal year 1991. Projects ranging from studies of the effects of fare increases on transit ridership (the results of these are still used today) to subway tunneling techniques fell by the wayside. A cooperative research program between the Federal Government and transit agencies never received full support and was dropped in the mid-1980s. UMTAs plans now include a Transit Planning and Research Program that includes both national (or Federal) and State and local components 6 Funding is planned to be almost manuscript, January 1991. b U.S. Department of Transportation, Urban Mass Transportation Administration, Planning and Research: A New Urban Mass Transportation Administration Program, w unpublished manuscript, 3 percent of the total transit program appropriation, with one-third retained by DOT for a national planning and research program and twothirds to States for planning and research and a revived cooperative research program. 7 These plans seem carefully structured and well worth congressional support. New Technologies Despite the development by entrepreneurs of promising new technologies, few have actually been applied on Federal-aid projects. Moreover, companies trying to introduce new technologies often find the process time-consuming, cumbersome, and eventually unproductive or even defeating. Since it had the backing of its European parent, the company described in box 2-E was better able to devote resources to convincing public officials in the United States of the worth of its product than many of the small companies that have contacted OTA to express March 1991, p. 2. 7 Ibid., p. 7.

PAGE 40

Box 2-E--Novophalt: A Tough Road As Federal priorities shift from building new highways to rebuilding existing facilities, employing new technologies to increase the useful lives of the Nations roads and bridges would seem to be a cost-effective approach. Technologies, such as cathodic protection and new techniques of repaving roads, although somewhat more costly to instalI, could potentially save lives and billions of dollars by slowing infrastructure deterioration. But despite their availability, government timidity and cumbersome public procedures often prevent using such technologies during rebuilding. The polymer modified asphalt binder, Novophalt, is one example of a new technology whose introduction has been impeded by the complicated approval process of the Federal Government and the reluctance of most public officials to stray from familiar paths. The binder, which increases pavement durability, consists of paving-grade asphalt cement and up of 4 to 6 percent virgin or recycled polyolefins. Developed in Europe, Novophalt has been used there since 1976 and was introduced to the United States 10 years later. Although it costs an estimated 4 to 8 percent more per project than conventional asphalt mixtures, the company estimates that its product can extend pavement service life from 50 to 100 percent. If life-cycle cost estimates are used, Novophak officials argue, their product could potentially reduce costs up to 50 percent from those of conventional asphalt. 1 Studies by different Federal agencies appear to bear out the companys assertions. A report released by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), while not mentioning the product by name, said that polyethylene-modified asphalt may benefit runways where rutting, fatigue cracking, or thermal cracking presents a problem. 2 The Army Corps of Engineers also found asphalt concrete with the same properties as Novophalt to providesuperior overall performance. To demonstrate the merits of its product, the company has conducted 22 demonstration projects in North America on airport runways and highway reconstruction projects. In one such project, where the material was used in reconstruction of city streets in Manhattan, it performed much better than standard asphalt over the same period of time. Armed with such positive results, Novophalt officials hoped to win a contract for paving a new airport runway. However, their proposal was met with resistance by managers at the local airport authority, who were unfamiliar with the technology and had not read the FAA report about the performance of polyethylene-modified asphalt. 4 When the company sought a contract to repave sections of a local parkway system, Federal Highway Administration officials asked Novophalt to conduct yet another demonstration project in the area, despite their successful demonstrations for numerous State Departments of Transportation. The companys experience is illustrative of the difficulties entrepreneurs face when trying to introduce a new technology into the public works arena, although Novophalt, as a foreign proprietary technology, faced some additional problems despite its U.S. demonstrations. Quite aside from questions of international competition, Federal agencies are wary of foreign technologies because of different operating conditions and perceived scarcity of data. 5 Furthermore, public officials are concerned about the risks of price changes or supply problems associated with purchasing a proprietary technology from a private source. Even though the FederaI Government encourages private industry to develop new technologies, the reluctance of officials to contract for proprietary innovations makes public works technology development an unprofitable venture for most companies. 1 Walter Tappeiner, Novophalt America, Inc., personal communication, Apr. 11, 1991. 2 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Polyethylene Modified Asphtdt ~ement, Engineering Brief No. 45, AAS-200, Feb. 21, 1990. fA. F. Stock and G. Anderton, An Assessment of the Resistance to Permanent Deformation of l#iodified Asphalt Mixes$ paper presented at Eurobitume, Madrid, Spain, October 1989, p. 451. Hugh Mields, consultant, personal communication, Apr. 11, 1991. 5 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Delivering the Gooa!r: Public Workr Techno@ies, Management, and Financing, OTA-SET-477 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1991), p. 201. 31

PAGE 41

their frustration over the futility of their efforts. Future R&D activities in DOT must make evaluation of the operating and costeffectiveness of new technologies a priority, to begin moving the best of them into wider use. As one example caused by past inattention to the importance of technologies, the types of automated toll collection facilities now speeding drivers through toll facilities in Dallas, Texas, New Orleans, and Oklahoma have been available for some time, yet have only recently been implemented. FHWA has belatedly begun to emphasize Intelligent Vehicle/Highway Systems (IVHS) programs, but their benefits are still unrealized in numerous metropolitan regions with terrible congestion problems that IVHS could address. Demonstration projects, originally designed and used to test new technologies, now consist of many projects that break no new technical ground. Too often, they are used to fund improvements or construct a new local facility, giving demonstrations, originally a good idea, a bad name. R&D Priorities Top priorities technologies that for short-term R&D are address maintenance, rehabilitation, and system preservation, including: materials, construction equipment, processes, technologies, and techniques to ease both highway and urban traffic congestion and improve intermodal connections. 8 Materials that improve the longevity of pavement and bridges may cost more initially, but many ultimately prove cost-effective over the life of the facility. Asphalt products using recycled materials such as tires and plastics have proven successful under the right circumstances, and increased research could refine them to make widespread use a feasible option. FHWAS emphasis on IVHS is an appropriate first step. IVHS technologies for highway operations and better traffic management can help alleviate congestion and also permit some forms of congestion pricing. 8 The Federal Highway Administrations draft report, Research and Technology Program 19921996 (updated in August 1990), shows that the agency is moving toward setting priorities for its own research and development program. The report focuses heavily on highways, which limits its usefulness in addressing future transportation needs. However, over the longer term, IVHS activities now under way in UMTA and NHTSA must be fully integrated in the DOT IVHS plan, and IVHS activities must be one component of a larger departmental strategic research program. Other surface transportation technologies that need support, including funding, in the near term include examination of the cost-effectiveness of separate high-speed rail or magnetic levitation train service in the most heavily traveled intercity corridors. Longer term construction and implementation of the appropriate system is likely to be desirable in these corridors to supplement existing services. Evaluation or demonstration projects will be necessary to move these technologies into widespread use. A comprehensive, preproject review process, such as that employed by SHRP, for proposed demonstration projects could eliminate those with insufficient technical merit. The natural aversion to risk by most government officials is often compounded with unfamiliarity with current technologies. Increasing the training given to highway officials at all levels of government could make these individuals more amenable to implementing new technologies. Expanding the National Highway Institute, as FHWA proposes, is an important first step for accomplishing this goal. Long-range planning and R&D that look ahead to future problems simply do not exist at DOT, and this is a serious deficiency. The issue needs a careful scrutiny by Congress and DOT itself. A strategic, departmentwide R&D plan that looks beyond surface transportation is the first step toward implementing the national transportation strategy. Congress may wish to require DOT to address this issue in the near future. Data Collection and Performance Measures Accurate baseline data and performance measures are important keys to improving transportation performance. Transportation data collection was severely curtailed during the 1980s, and it will take time to acquire enough information to develop good performance goals. To plan for the future, DOT needs to know more about travel patterns, congestion causes, and land-use transportation relationships. As a first

PAGE 42

step, DOT plans to conduct a multimodal passenger and freight transportation survey in fiscal years 1992 and 1993. Congressional support for full funding of this effort is crucial. At present we are making decisions about billions of dollars in Federal expenditures based on 15-year-old data that were inadequate to begin with. Private Sector Investment roads under special, carefully crafted agreements. The success of these projects in enduring the lengthy environmental impact statement process or a prolonged, severe economic downturn remains to be seen. Few other examples of such projects exist in this country, although they are more common in Europe. The legal and institutional framework in the United States indicates that public funding for transportation facilities is likely to predominate for the foreseeable future. Parts of the country with growing populations and relatively healthy economies can attract private investment for public facilities, and California has arranged several privately financed 33

PAGE 43

Chapter 3 Motor Carrier Issues As Congress considers the reauthorization of the Federal highway program, two fundamental issues under debate are how to restructure the Federal-aid program and how to pay for the necessary highway improvements. Spearheaded by the American Trucking Associations (ATA), the trucking industry has made clear that if higher truck taxes are considered as part of a funding package, the industry will push for regulatory changes to increase their operating productivity. However, some of the suggested reforms have impacts that greatly concern other members of the transportation community, and debate on this issue has been intense. For example, States have long been in the process of developing agreements to bring their different motor carrier registration, permitting, and fuel tax procedures into greater conformity, so that national and regional trucking companies need not file for operating authority separately in each State. Some progress has been made; for example, the International Registration Plan now includes over 40 States. However, the International Fuel Tax Agreement includes fewer than 20 States, and no universally acceptable compact exists. Trucking companies contend that Federal preemption of State authority (always a difficult issue) in this area is warranted. Issues of motor carrier safety have also been contentious, with industry sources maintaining that Federal data show that the heavy truck safety record per mile traveled has improved. However, safety reports contend that Federal data substantially underestimate carrier accidents and that the federally funded Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program needs to improve its enforcement activities and address uniformity issues associated with penalties and regulations. 2 1 See, for example, U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Gearing Up For Safety: Motor Carrier Safety in a Competitive Environment, OTASET-3 82 (Washington, DC: U.S Government Printing Office, 1988), ch. 7. z See two reports by the U.S. Congress, Committee on Commerce, Science, and This chapter lays out what is known about the most recent very difficult issue--long heavy trucks, known as longer combination vehicles (LCVs)--to assist Congress in its deliberations on the highway reauthorization. It discusses their performance on the highway, the institutional and regulatory framework, technologies and programs that could enhance their safety, their effects on motorists and highway condition, and market impacts. It also provides information on an industry proposal to increase bus productivity by permitting longer intercity buses. LARGE, HEAVY TRUCKS ON THE ROAD The most recent Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) statistics show a total of 187 million motor vehicles of all types, of which 76 percent were automobiles, 0.3 percent were buses, and about 23 percent were trucks. 3 Light trucks--pickups, panel trucks, and delivery vans, generally of 10,000 Ibs. or less gross vehicle weight (GVW)--make up the bulk (87 percent) of the 42-million-vehicle private and commercial truck fleet, although they play only a minor role in interstate commerce. 4 In 1989, 1.2 million trucktractor power units and 3.7 million commercialtype trailers and semitrailers (most of the Nations large, heavy trucks) were counted. Most tractor-trailer configurations travel close to 100,000 miles per year, and they dominate commercial interstate traffic. One carrier industry proposal, greater standardization of State fuel tax programs and reporting requirements, is supported by the National Governors Association consensus agenda 5 and may be feasible as a productivity Transportation: Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP): Options Intended to Improve a Generally Successjid and Cooperative Federal-State Partnership Promoting Truck and Bus Safety, Senate Print 100-109 (Washington, DC: June 1988); and Reauthorization of the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP): Options Intended to Improve Highway Safety, Senate Print 102-10 (Washington, DC: March 1991). 35

PAGE 44

enhancement. However, another industry suggestion--changing the Federal policy to allow States to determine individually whether and where to allow heavy trucks with multiple trailers, has generated substantial public resistance and enormous industry controversy. This issue is particularly salient in view of industry success during recent years in gaining permission to operate 53-foot trailers in a steady succession of eastern States, where they had hitherto not been allowed. This shift occurred after a Federal law was passed that included an industry-backed requirement for States to permit 48and twin 28foot trailers on highways built with Federal funds. State officials fear that industry supporters of LCVs will become active in individual State capitols if the Federal posture on this issue is altered. While OTAs research on the subject of LCVs answered many questions, it raised almost as many more. A mountain of studies has been done by Federal and State Governments, universities, and industry groups, including a number by the Transportation Research Board (TRB), an arm of the National Research Council. However, each TRB study has looked at specific issues, and no conclusions on wider use of current LCV configurations can legitimately be drawn from them, despite some carrier claims. TRB has convened a planning group to consider the need for more studies on the subject. 6 LCVs DEFINED A relatively small subset of the Nations tractor-trailer combination total, LCVs are typically multiunit combination trucks with gross vehicle weights in excess of 80,000 Ibs. The most familiar type of multitrailer combination vehicles are western (or short) doubles, allowed on a national basis on the Federal highway network since 1982. These consist of one tractor hauling two 26to 28-foot trailers, and while they are not considered LCVs, they have some of the same handling properties. LCVs proper include turnpike doubles, Rocky Mountain doubles, and triple-trailer combinations (see figures 3-1 and 3-2). Turnpike doubles 3 u s Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics 1989 (Washington, DC: 1990). 4 For further information, see Office of consist of one tractor hauling two trailers, each 45to 48-feet long, can weigh up to 135,000 Ibs., and typically have eight or nine axles. Rocky Mountain doubles consist of one tractor hauling two trailers, the first of which is 45to 48-feet long and the second, 26to 29-feet long. These vehicles can weigh up to 115,000 Ibs. and typically have seven axles. Triple combinations consist of one tractor hauling three 26-to 29-foot trailers, can weigh up to 110,000 Ibs., and have seven axles. 7 LCVs can also include bulk commodity doubles, in turnpike double or Rocky Mountain double configurations, used to transport dry bulk, liquid, or gaseous products in tank-type trailers. At present, Rocky Mountain doubles are the most widely used LCVs. LCV operations of one type or another are already allowed in some 20 States, primarily in the West, but also in the East on toll roads and turnpikes (see figures 3-3, 3-4, and 3-5). In some areas, and under restricted conditions, LCVs have been operating for as many as 30 years and traveled hundreds of millions of miles. According to State and industry data, 8 the accident record of LCVs equals or compares favorably with that of other trucks. Most States permitting LCVs bar their operations in inclement weather and restrict their use to Interstate highways and roads of high design standard in uncontested areas. At issue is whether existing Federal size and weight limits should be retained, or whether each State should be allowed to determine its own requirements, an eventuality that would almost certainly increase the number of States where LCVs operate. REGULATORY BACKGROUND Since States first placed limitations on trucking operations to protect their highways from being damaged by heavy axle weights, trucking companies have sought ways to Technology Assessment, op. cit., footnote 1, pp. 31-34. 5 Wanen Hoemann, Yellow Freight System, Inc., personal communication, May 7, 1991. 6 Robert Skinner, director, Special Projects, Transportation Research Board, personal communication, May 6, 1991. 7 A fourth configuration, known as a Urner double, was proposed as part of a Transportation Research Board study and consists of one tractor hauling two 30to 34-foot trailers and includes nine axles. However, no wide demand for this vehicle is 36

PAGE 45

Figure 3-lHeavy Truck Configurations Straight truck 3-axle tractor-semitrailer 4-axle tractor-semitrailer 5-axle tractor-semitrailer 38 48 5-axle tractor flatbed trailer 38 48 1 Twin trailer or double 1 5-axle tractor tank trailer 1 Rocky Mountain double (operated only in certain States) 45 48 28 1 Turnpike double (operated only in certain States) Triple (operated only in certain States) SOURCE: American Trucking Associations, Inc. 37

PAGE 46

Figure 3-2Vehicle Size Comparison T 1 T 1 SOURCE: American Trucking Associations, Inc. 38

PAGE 47

. 39

PAGE 48

40

PAGE 50

increase allowable vehicle sizes and weights. The first State laws regulating truck weight were adopted by Massachusetts and Maine in 1913, limiting gross vehicle weight (GVW) to 28,000 Ibs. and 18,000 Ibs., respectively. Pennsylvania later expanded on these regulations by placing a single axle limit of 18,000 Ibs., a standard used on Interstate highways until 1974, and was the first State to establish a size restriction, requiring that all trucks on its roads be less than 90 inches wide. By 1933, all States had imposed total vehicle weight limits, and almost all States had adopted some sort of axle weight restrictions. g Federal Standards In response to State and industry concerns about the lack of regulatory uniformity between States, the American Association of State Highway Officials, now the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), published a recommended program of uniform truck size and weight practices in 1946. The weight limits consisted of 18,000 Ibs. for single axles, 32,000 Ibs. for tandem axles, and 73,320 Ibs. for GVW, although States could allow heavier trucks under special permits. However, no Federal standards were set until 1956, with the passage of Federal legislation establishing the Interstate highway construction program. 10 At that time, the AASHTO axle and gross vehicle weight recommendations and a 96inch width limit were included in the law, which applied only to Interstate highways. A grandfather clause allowed the continuing operation of wider or heavier trucks in those States where they were legal before the laws passage. The legislation also called on the Commerce Department to issue a report on the maximum desirable size and weight of trucks. The study, completed in 1964, recommended raising the weight restrictions to 20,000 Ibs. for single axles, 34,000 Ibs. for tandem axles, and 105,5oo Ibs. for GVW. The report also provided three different bridge formula programs, aimed at addressing the effects of heavy trucks on bridges built with Federal aid. One of the three, known as Bridge foreseen by the trucking industry, since it does not meet their market needs, and it is not discussed here. 8 However, ~ number of studies, including OTAS Formula B, was adopted. It allowed GVW to increase as axle spacing increased and established two main Federal classes of bridges. The HS-20 formula, used for bridges on most Interstate, allows axle weights that exceed design stress levels by 5 percent, while the H-15 model accounts for a possible 30-percent weight increase above optimum stress load. For the HS-20, the hypothetical truck weighs 72,000 Ibs. on three axles, 8,000 Ibs. for the front axles and 32,000 Ibs. for each of the two remaining axles. An H-15 bridge is designed to support trucks weighing 54,000 Ibs. with a front axle weight of 6,000 Ibs. and the remaining weight evenly distributed between the axles. The reasoning behind the more conservative formula for excess weight on the HS-20 was the bridges predominance on the existing Federal-aid system roads and the greater amount of truck travel on these bridges. Congress incorporated Bridge Formula B as part of amendments to the highway act in 1974 11 The change in Federal weight regulations was made partly to offset industry concerns about possible reductions in trucking productivity resulting from legislation lowering the Federal speed limit to 55 miles per hour (mph). 12 The amendments also permitted States to raise GVW and single and tandem axle weight limits to the present limits of 80,000 Ibs., 20,000 Ibs., and 34,000 Ibs., respectively. Safety concerns registered at that time about wider use of larger trucks were countered by U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) announcements that the trucks would be equipped with antilock brakes as required by new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and that new truck tire standards would soon go into effect. 3 However, the antilock brake requirements for trucks were later struck down in a court decision (see later discussion of antilock brakes) and no Federal standard for them has yet been promulgated. Gearing Up For Safety (see the first footnote in this chapter), have raised concerns about the accuracy and completeness of State accident reports and data. 9 National Research Council, Transportation Research Board, Truck Weight Limits: Issues and Options (Washington DC: 1990), p. 35. 10 70 stat. 374. 11 ~blic LWV 93-643. 42

PAGE 51

Although by the early 1980s, only three States did not allow 80,000 Ibs. GVW and required lower axle weight limits on the Interstate system, these States were concentrated in the Mississippi Valley, a fact that had made coast-to-coast transport difficult. Western doubles (28-foot twins) were allowed in 70 percent of the States before enactment of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA), with nearly all of the States still prohibiting them located on the east coast. The 1982 STAA 5 relaxed size and weight restrictions further, requiring all States to allow the weights permitted under the 1974 amendments to operate on the Interstate system. These allowances were a tradeoff for increases in Federal heavy vehicle fuel taxes and user fees imposed by the STAA. The width limit was increased as well, this time to 102 inches. The act also gave States control in deciding which trucks fell under the grandfather clause of 1956. In 1984, the Tandem Truck Safety Act G again eased restrictions, by requiring States to give broader access for single 28-foot-by-102-inch trailers and freer access for 102-inch trailers in general. Previously, the latter vehicles had been limited to roads with 12-foot-wide lanes. Grandfather Clauses The practical effect of the grandfathering of existing weight provisions in 1956 and 1974 has been to create a great deal of variation among the States in allowable truck sizes and weights, even on the Interstate system. Moreover, States can and do allow overweight trucks to operate at higher weights off the Interstate system under laws which vary widely from State to State (see detailed discussion later in this chapter). Two classes of vehicles currently operate on the Interstate system at weights in excess of the Federal axle and gross weight limits under grandfather clauses. One includes vehicles allowed to operate at weights in excess of 20,000 Ibs. single axle and 34,000 Ibs. tandem axle limits (or in excess of the Bridge Formula) in those States with higher limits before the passage of the 1956 and 1974 acts. This covers single-unit 12 Tran~Portation Research Board, oPo cit. footnote 9, p. 36. 13 u s Congress, Senate Committee on public Works, ?%e Federal-Aid Highway Amendment of 1974, to accompany S. 3934 (Washington, DC: bulk haulers such as concrete mixers, dump trucks, garbage trucks, fire engines, and some local buses. The other class of heavier vehicles allowed on the Interstate system are the various combination vehicles which operate under special permits. All States allow single or short-term permits for weights in excess of 80,000 Ibs. for the movement of nondivisible loads. Furthermore, Federal law has been quite clear about the rights of States to issue single-trip or short-term permits for nondivisible loads. In addition, 29 States now issue multiple-trip permits for divisible loads on certain highways and under specific operating conditions under the 1956 grandfather provision, an increase from 22 States in 1987. Some groups have argued that multiple-trip special permits for divisible loads should not have been covered by the grandfather provisions of the 1956 act. Extensive controversy has also surrounded the interpretation of State laws and State practices that were in effect in 1956. The amendment to the weight section in the STAA of 1982 was intended to clarify these arguments and provide that States interpretations of their laws and practices in 1956 should prevail. In recent years, some States that allow LCVs have substantially increased the numbers of special permits issued. This became necessary when shippers and their customers developed new markets made possible by the higher weights allowed under the permits. However, FHWA has become concerned that the grandfather clauses are being used to nullify Federal weight regulations in some States. HANDLING AND SAFETY CHARACTERISTICS Although the handling and stability characteristics of trucks depend greatly on the road geometry, pavement properties, equipment condition, number of axles, number, length, and weight of units, and how they are loaded and operated, any articulated vehicle is more difficult to drive safely than a straight truck or automobile. Some general comparisons can be made, however, between and among LCVs and conventional five-axle tractor-semitrailers. For example, triples have better low-speed maneuverability because of their short trailer 43

PAGE 52

wheelbases. Generally, low-speed offtracking, which occurs when the trailing axles of a vehicle migrate toward the center of a curve, is greatest for turnpike doubles, followed by Rocky Mountain doubles, conventional tractorsemitrailers, and triples. The greater the offtracking, the wider the road needs to be to accommodate turns. 17 However, when multiple trailers are connected by conventional converter dollies, trailer sway, especially in emergency maneuvers, is greatest for triples, followed by western doubles, Rocky Mountain doubles, turnpike doubles, and tractor-semitrailers. Articulated vehicles with more than one trailer experience strong side forces on the rear unit during rapid steering movements, such as those necessary to avoid an accident. The effects of the side forces are magnified between the tractor and rearmost trailer, often creating unstable behavior, such as trailer swing that can lead to rollover. g This rearward amplification is of particular concern with triple combinations, but rear trailer rollover occurs even with western (short) doubles. 20 The weight of each trailer and overall weight distribution also affect stability, making careful loading and trailer sequencing especially important. No Federal standards currently exist for trailer order or weight distribution. Engine power and torque requirements to maintain minimum speed on grades increase with vehicle weight. Thus the most power and torque are needed for turnpike doubles, followed by triples, Rocky Mountain doubles, and tractorsemitrailers. Currently, no Federal requirements exist for engine power to ensure adequate minimum speeds, and such requirements would be difficult to enforce. However, State U.S. Government Printing Office, Aug. 20, 1974). 1A National Research Council, Transportation Research Board, Providing Access for Heavy Trucks (Washington, DC: 1989), p. 16. 15 fiblic IAW 97-424. 16 fiblic ~w 98-554. 17 u s Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Z?ze Feasibility of a Nationwide Network for Longer Combination Vehicles (Washington, DC: June 1985), p. III-3. 18 These are known as A-dollies, which have a single drawbar attaching to a pintle hook on the preceding trailer. 19 W-R*J. Mercer et al., Test and DernonstratiOn of requirements for adequate performance and ability to maintain a minimum speed on grades could be enforceable and could help ensure adequate power. 2 Braking power requirements also increase with vehicle weight, but braking distance depends on vehicle weight, tire and pavement characteristics, weight distribution, and the number of brake-equipped axles. In general, when each vehicle is comparably loaded and brakes are adjusted properly, stopping distance is essentially the same for all configurations. Under empty or partial loading, particularly when the rear part of any configuration is unloaded, braking distance will increase dramatically. Properly functioning antilock brake systems, discussed later, can greatly relieve this problem. Safety-Enhancing Technologies Using experienced, well-trained drivers that employ defensive driving techniques is an important means of avoiding accidents for articulated vehicles. Indeed, accident experience with LCVs thus far indicates that properly trained drivers operating in Iight-traffic-density, sparsely populated regions of the country can operate LCVs safely. However, even the best trucking companies complain that finding good drivers is difficult at present, and wider use of LCVs could lower the general skill level of LCV drivers and increase LCV exposure to dangerous situations. 22 If LVCs are operated in traffic mixes that increase the need for avoidance maneuvers, increases in crashes and rollovers can be expected. A number of vehicle technologies are available or are being developed, however, to counter the handling difficulties of articulated trucks and make them safer and/or mitigate damage to the infrastructure. These include Double and Triple Trailer Combinations (Downsview, Ontario, Canada: Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Communications, August 1982), p. 17. ZO National Transportation Safety Board, recommendation H-90-7, 1990. 21 Larry Strawhorn, American Trucking Associations, personal communication, May 7, 1991. 22 OTA understands that companies with strong driver screening and training requirements, such as 44

PAGE 53

antilock brakes, double-drawbar dollies for multiple-unit trucks, automatic slack adjusters, air suspension systems, and many others. Brakes Faulty braking systems are a contributing feature in a significant portion of truck accidents; they can contribute to accidents by not stopping the vehicle in time or causing wheel lockup, jackknifing, or trailer swing. Experts estimate that roughly one-half of all air-braked vehicles have at least one brake out of adjustment. The overall effect of recent fuel efficiency improvements, such as radial tires with lower rolling resistance, aerodynamic shields, and reduced friction engines, is roughly equivalent to increasing the slope of downgrades by 1 percent. 23 This places a much greater premium on properly maintained braking systems. LCVs have more complex braking systems than conventional tractor-trailers, because the multiple trailers require more brake sets, each of which must be properly adjusted to ensure proper balance, timing, and torque. In addition, tractor and trailer brakes are certified separately, which places an especially large burden on those responsible for LCV maintenance to ensure compatibility between the tractor and various trailer brake sets. Often motor carriers do not control specification and maintenance of all the equipment used in their operations. Adjustments must be made frequently during the life of a lining with manual adjusting brakes. Automatic slack adjusters can keep brakes in better adjustment, provide improved braking, and reduce maintenance costs. Though automatic slack adjusters are fairly standard on tractors, they are not consistently used on trailers, except by the larger fIeets. 24 Recent National Transportation Safety Board inspections indicate that even automatic adjusters do not always ensure well-adjusted brakes and require Yellow Freight Systems and United Parcel Service, will continue to use their most experienced and capable drivers for longer combination vehicles (LCVS). However, no such assurances pertain to the thousands of other potential operators of LCVS. 23 Ian s. Jones, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Truck Air Brakes: Current Standards and Performance, proceedings of the 29th Conference of the American Society of Automotive Medicine, some maintenance. 25 A number of studies suggest that antilock brakes (known as ABS), particularly if introduced on all axles of a configuration, may be effective in reducing the frequency of jackknifing and loss of control due to braking. At present, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is studying ABS on a cooperative basis with industry. Mandatory use of ABS was planned in the United States about 15 years ago, when Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 121 was promulgated. However, ABS systems were unreliable at that time, and suffered from malfunctions caused by electromagnetic interference, among other problems. After a 1978 court decision eliminating the stopping distance requirement that resulted in the mandatory use of ABS, NHTSA proceeded on the basis of independent testing before making any decision on mandating ABS again. However, the trucking industry in the United States has remained skeptical about ABS because of their experiences in the late 1970s with systems that were not technically mature. NHTSA is now conducting a test program with industry where 200 tractors have been placed in service with various ABS systems. 26 Fifty ABS-equipped trailers will be operational by June of 1991. Results of this program have been generally favorable and are expected to guide Federal regulatory efforts. ABS is viewed by many safety experts as an important accident prevention tool, especially in avoiding trailer swing, jackknifing, or loss of steering control during braking. Although full benefits are achieved only if ABS is employed on all axles, some improvement in braking control can result from any set of ABS-equipped axles. According to a 1988 survey of foreign experience, 27 ABS systems used in Europe have many 1984, pp. 39-61. 24 Ron Roudebusch, Rockwell hternational COW., personal communication, Mar. 8, 1991; and Jerry DeClair, Rockwell International Corp., personal communication, May 7, 1991. 25 James Kolstad, National Transportation SafetY Board Chairman, unpublished remarks at the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association meeting, Feb. 18, 1991. 26 Transport Canada and ontario Ministry f Transportation, B-Train ABS Evaluation, working 45

PAGE 54

checks and redundancies to ensure proper operation, and drivers report feeling safer with ABS and believe their vehicles can stop more quickly. Moreover, European experience with heavy truck and bus fleets indicates no interference problems with radios or other external electronic equipment. The systems require no routine attention aside from checks performed prior to and during required brake inspections, and the life of the ABS equals that of the vehicle. The only frequently mentioned concern is a problem with false alarm warning lights, which does not affect braking ability. Trailer Connections and Suspensions The double-drawbar dolly (C-dolly), used by some companies in Canada, couples trailers in a manner that eliminates one articulation point, improves roll stability, and reduces rearward amplification (see figure 3-6). It includes a self-steering axle to reduce high stress levels in the equipment due to tire scuffing in low-speed turns. The C-dolly also reduces low-speed offtracking because the axle is self-steerable. Self-steering axles are vulnerable to unequal longitudinal forces acting through the wheels of the axle, such as when one side is on a paved road and the other is on a dirt shoulder or packed snow and ice. These weaknesses can be offset with the use of an appropriate centering force system. Self-steering axles also require locking mechanisms to immobilize the steering action of the axle when the vehicle moves in reverse. These mechanisms can be controlled from the tractor cab. The locking feature of the C-dolly yields greater vehicle maneuverability in trucking terminals and staging areas. 28 For example, the C-dolly enables multitrailer combinations to back up in a straight line for considerable distances. The C-dolly shows potential to reduce rearward amplification and trailer rollovers and to improve maneuverability for all multitrailer combinations with trailers paper, May 1990, pp. 1-2. 27 paul S. Fancher, Transportation Research Institute, University of Michigan European/Australian Experience With Antilock Braking Systems in Fleet Service, DOT Final Report No. DOT HS 807269 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, March 1988). 28 J. Woodroofe et al. Vehicle Dynamics Laboratory, National Research Council of Canada, less than 40 feet in length. This points to a need for large-scale fleet testing. Some Canadian provinces encourage the use of Cdollies over other hitching mechanisms by allowing vehicles equipped with them to carry greater maximum weight. The B-train hitch is an alternative to the standard converter dolly used for multitrailer combinations. When B-trains are used, the towing trailers must have an extended frame with a fifth wheel for attaching the next trailer (see figure 3-6 again). The extended frame can be sliding, which allows the trailer to be backed flush to a loading dock, or fixed. B-trains with fixed frames are difficult to use in some operations because its protruding rear wheels prevent backing up the lead trailer flush to truck loading docks. Tests in Canada, where B-trains see significant use, indicate that they have superior stability, handling, and offtracking characteristics compared to conventional A-trains.* g As with the C-dolly, some Canadian provinces encourage the use of B-trains by allowing companies using them to carry greater weights. Technologies can also be used to mitigate the effects of heavy trucks on pavements and bridges. For instance, air suspensions almost always produce lower dynamic loads than steel leaf suspensions. Tests conducted in the United Kingdom show that axle loads on bridges decrease by as much as 27 percent when air suspensions are used. Moreover, dynamic loads increase with speed more with steel leaf suspensions than with air suspensions. These findings point to less wear on roads and bridges when air suspensions are used. Air suspensions also reduce vibrations at the drivers position, 30 leading many drivers to prefer them, and can reduce equipment damage, particularly when a truck is traveling empty. Despite the potential of these technologies to make driving LCVs safer and easier, manufacturers of such equipment have not found large Development of Design and Operational Guidelines for the C-Converter Dolly, paper presented at the Second International Symposium on Heavy Vehicle Weights and Dimensions, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada, June 18-22, 1989. 29 J R Billing et al., Test of a B-Tmin COnVerter Dolly (Downsview, Ontario, Canada: Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Communications, 46

PAGE 55

Figure 3-6-Hitching Mechanisms for Twin-Trailer Trucks A-train hitch 47

PAGE 56

markets for their products. Technological aids such as ABS and double-drawbar dollies show much potential to improve safety, particularly in emergency situations. Requirements for these, or similar technologies capable of providing controlled braking and reducing trailer sway, are essential to ensure low LCV accident rates. Congress could require DOT to implement standards for these technologies for companies using LCVs. LCV Accident Records Despite the handling difficulties of LCVs and the fact that the types of safety-enhancing technologies discussed above are not commonly used, most research and accident records indicate that LCV fatal and nonfatal accident rates per vehicle-mile traveled are equal to or better than those of other articulated trucks. However, most research also shows the accident rate of multitrailer trucks--most of which are western (twin) doubles, since they are allowed nationwide--to be higher than that of conventional tractor-semitrailers. 31 The reasons for the seeming contradictions are two-fold. First, recognizing the special skills required to operate LCVs safely, most carriers assign their most skilled and experienced drivers to LCV S 32 No such precautions characterize the choice of drivers for western doubles. Second, because of State permitting requirements, LCVS generally travel over the safest roads and under the safest conditions. No such permitting procedures apply to conventional tractor-semitrailer and western doubles operations, accounting for their higher accident rates. Western doubles appear to have the highest accident rates of all articulated trucks. However, previous LCV use and accident experience are simply inadequate to determine accurately the consequences of May 1983), pp. ii-iii. so C.G.B. Mitchell and L. Gyenes, Trmsport ad Road Research Laboratory, United Kingdom, Dynamic Pavement Loads Measured for a Variety of Truck Suspensions, unpublished report, 1989. 31 For further information, see Office f Technology Assessment, op. cit., footnote 1, pp. 95-97; and a review of past studies in Forrest M. Council and William L. Hall, University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, Large Truck Safety in North Carolina, unpublished LCV use on a wider network. For example, most large national accident databases--those most likely to provide sufficient data to give statistically reliable information--have major limitations, including uneven levels of accident reporting, inaccurate exposure data, and insufficient level of detail. For instance, accident and truck-use databases do not clearly distinguish LCVs from other multitrailer combinations, because they do not include either trailer length or total vehicle length. State and industry records on LCV operations show that triples have the lowest fatal accident rate, followed by turnpike doubles and Rocky Mountain doubles. Again, this ranking results not from inherent characteristics of each configuration, but from how much and where each vehicle is driven, and from driver selection procedures. For example, Rocky Mountain doubles see much more off-interstate use than other LCVs, and their drivers are less carefully screened than operators of turnpike doubles and triples. Triples operators appear to be the most carefully screened; it is not unusual for a company to require several years of accidentfree doubles driving before allowing a driver to operate triples. Comparing inherent safety and vehicle handling characteristics is quite different than comparing how safely the vehicles are operated under present circumstances. The lack of good data has hampered efforts to evaluate LCV accident experience. Researchers estimate that 1 billion vehicle-miles of travel would be required for reliably detecting a 10to 20-percent difference in accident rates among different configurations under clean conditions (stable fleet composition, reliable data) .33 Such data are simply not available. Moreover, the task of acquiring enough data is daunting, because each LCV configuration has unique properties dependent on such various factors as wind, road geometry, choice of hitching mechanism, tire and suspension properties, trailer wheelbases, and trailer loading. report, October 1988, pp. 10-17. 32 u s Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Longer Combination Vehicle Operations in Western States (Washington, DC: October 1986), pp. 11-13-11-18. 33 Gordon A. Sparks, Department Of Civil Engineering, University of Saskatchewan, et al., Safety Experience of Large Trucks: An Analysis 48

PAGE 57

STATE PROGRAMS State operating restrictions and permit practices for LCVs and other types of heavy vehicles vary widely because of the many different types of LCVs and the diverse ways and locations in which they are used. Most trucking operations are regional, and State highway officials, even in neighboring States, do not have uniform permitting requirements. For example, in Utah motor carriers must designate their LCV routes and have their safety programs certified, including guarantees that all LCV drivers are tested in accordance with Federal law. The tests at a minimum must include left-hand and righthand turns, entering and exiting highways, operation in traffic, and operation on grades. Many, but not all, States and toll authorities that allow LCVs perform engineering evaluations to determine the impact on infrastructure, conduct demonstrations with test vehicles, and limit operations to selected carriers before authorizing operations by other qualified companies. 34 Unstandard Standards Fourteen States allow the operation of overweight vehicles 35 on Interstate without a special permit. Most of these States allow higher axle weights than permitted by Federal law, although Michigan and New Mexico both allow a GVW greater than the 80,000 Ibs. Federal limit. Some States also allow single and tandem axle weights to exceed the Federal limit. In addition, States do not always apply Federal regulations to non-lnterstates. The maximum GVW on some non-lnterstates ranges from 73,280 Ibs. in Illinois, Minnesota, and Missouri to 154,000 Ibs. in Michigan. 36 Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, and Wyoming permit LCVs on the entire State highway network, while some other States restrict LCVs to a portion of the Interstate network. 37 Similarly, designated LCV highways may not be continuous from State to State, particularly for turnpike doubles and triples. Table 3-1 summarizes the variety of State of Sample Size Requirements, proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Heavy Vehicle Weights and Dimensions, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada, June 18-22, 1989. 34 Warren E. Hoema~, Yellow Freight System, personal communication, Apr. 25, 1991. 35 ~emeight refers here to weight limitS ~ excess of those set forth in 23 U.S. C. 127. regulations governing truck operations. (This table is revised every 6 months, with the next update scheduled for July 1991. Because State laws can change frequently, some information may be slightly outdated.) The lack of consistent requirements across State boundaries is an obstacle to freer interstate transport that many would like to see addressed, and as a result of State and industry efforts, 38 some uniformity has been achieved in western States in laws governing LCV equipment and operations. However, this is less true for special permits, fees, and driver qualifications, such as minimum age and operating experience. Generally, States issue operating permits to carriers (not individuals) and require them to certify minimum levels of driver experience, insurance coverage, and vehicle safety and inspection standards. Typically, violations of permit conditions result in temporary suspension of the permit and removal of the individual tractor from operation. Carrier use of other LCV units, even by the driver of the suspended vehicle, is not necessarily prohibited. LCV driver experience and training requirements are where States differ the most from Federal regulations and each other. Although numerous safety studies have concluded that drivers less than 25 years of age have the highest accident rate, minimum age requirements for LCV drivers are the same as or below the Federal limit of 21 years of age in all but one State. HUMAN FACTORS As stated earlier, LCVs relatively safe operating history is due in large part to the driver selection and training practices of the companies using them. It is not uncommon for a company to require accident-free driving before allowing a driver to operate an LCV. Training Training for companies with the safest LCV operating records includes an extensive on-theroad component. These operators believe that experience is essential in teaching drivers how to operate LCVs safely. Companies operating LCVs 36 lransportation Research Board, oPo cit* ~ footnote 9, pp. 45-47. 37 Federal Highway Administration, op. Cito ~ footnote 32, p. II-1. 49

PAGE 58

Table 3-lVehicle Sizes and Weights: Maximum Limits, Jan. 1,1991 DES. = Interstate and federally designated state highways. OTHER = All other state highways and supplemental routes LENGTH (FEET) INTERSTATE AND DESIG. HWYS. (DES.) STATE AND SUPP. HWYS. (OTHER) COMBINATIONS TRAILING COMBINATIONS TRAILING STRAIGHT UNITS UNITS STRAIGHT TRUCKS TRACTORTRACTORSEMlTRUCKS SEMlTWINTRACTORTRACTORSEMITRAILER TRAILER SEMlTWINTRAILER TRAILER TRAILER TRAILERS TRAILER TRAILERS ALABAMA 4 0 0 0 53 28.5 4 0 0 0 53 28.5 ALASKA 4 0 0 0 4 8 4 8 4 0 7 0 75 45 45 ARIZONA 40 0 0 57.5 28.5 40 65 0 51 28.5 ARKANSAS 40 0 65 53.5 28.50 4 0 0 6 5 53.5 28.5 CALIFORNIA 4 0 B B B B 4 0 B B B B COLORADO 40 0 0 57.33 D 28.5 D 40 0 0 57.33 D 28.5 D CONNECTICUT 60 0 0 48 28 60 0 0 48 28 DELAWARE 40 0 0 53 29 4 0 6 0 6 0 N S N S DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 4 0 0 0 4 8 2 8 4 0 55 A N S A FLORIDA F 0 0 5300 28 F 0 A 5300 A GEORGIA 60 0 0 5 3 N N 2 8 6 0 N N 6 0 N N A N N 5 3 N N A N N HAWAll 4 0 N S N S N S N S 4 0 6 0 65 N S N S IDAHO 4 0 0 0 4 8 6 1 G G 4 0 0 0 4 8 6 1 G G ILLINOIS 4 2 G G 5 3 G 28.5 4 2 G G 5 3 G 28.5 INDIANA 36 0 0 5 3 H H 28.5 3 6 0 0 5 3 HH 28.5 IOWA 4 0 0 0 53 28.5 4 0 6 0 6 0 N S NS KANSAS 42.5 0 0 53 28.5 42.5 0 0 53 28.5 KENTUCKY 45 D 0 53 28 45 55 A NS A LOUISIANA 40 0 0 59.5 3 0 4 0 65 A 50 A MAINE 45 0 0 4 8 28.5 4 5 65 A 4 8 A MARYLAND 4 0 0 0 4 8 2 8 4 0 0 A 4 8 A MASSACHUSETTS 4 0 0 0 4 8 28 4 0 60 A 4 8 B B A MICHIGAN 4 0 0 59 5300 28.5 4 0 0 59 5 0 N S MINNESOTA 4 0 0 0 53 EE 28.5 4 0 65 E 4 8 EE 28. 5 EE MISSISSIPPI 4 0 0 0 53 3 0 4 0 0 0 53 3 0 MISSOURI 4 0 0 0 53 28 4 0 6 0 65 N S NS MONTANA 4 0 0 0 53 28.5 4 0 0 0 53 28.5 NEBRASKA 4 0 0 0 53 6 5 Y 4 0 0 0 53 6 5 Y NEVADA 4 0 0 0 5 3 T 28. 5 T 4 0 0 T O T 4 8 T 28. 5 T NEW HAMPSHIRE 4 0 N/ S N/ S 48 28 4 0 0 0 4 8 28 NEW JERSEY 35 0 0 4 8 2 8 35 0 A 4 8 28 NEW MEXICO 4 0 0 0 57.5 28.5 4 0 65 65 NS NS NEW YORK 35 0 0 4 8 28.5 35 6 0 A A 6 0 4 5 A A N S NORTH CAROLINA F 0 D 5300 28 F 6 0 A NS A NORTH DAKOTA 5 0 0 0 53 53 5 0 7 5 U 7 5 U 53 53 OHIO 4 0 0 D 53 28.5 4 0 0 0 53 28.5 OKLAHOMA 45 0 0 c c 45 0 0 59 2 9

PAGE 59

Table 3-lVehicle Sizes and Weights: Maximum Limits, Jan. 1, 1991-Continued DES. = Interstate and federally designated state highways. OTHER = All other state highways and supplemental routes HEIGHT WIDT H WEIGH T (1 ,000 POUNDS) (FEET) (INCHES) SINGLE AXLE TANDEM AXLE GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT WEIGHT WEIGHT DES. OTHER INT. OTHER INT. OTHER INT. OTHER ALABAMA 13.5 102 L 2 0 2 0 3 4 4 0 8 0 8 4 ALASKA 14 102 102 2 0 2 0 38 3 8 K N S ARIZONA 13.5 102 9 6 2 0 2 0 3 4 3 4 8 0 8 0 ARKANSAS 13.5 102 102 2 0 2 0 34 34 8 0 8 0 CALIFORNIA 14 102 102 2 0 2 0 3 4 3 4 8 0 8 0 COLORADO 14.5 102 102 2 0 2 0 3 6 4 0 80 85 CONNECTICUT 13.5 102.36 102.3 6 22.4 22.4 3 6 W 3 6 w 8 0 8 0 DELAWARE 13.5 102 9 6 2 0 2 0 3 4 4 0 8 0 8 0 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 13.5 102 9 6 22 22 3 8 3 8 8 0 8 0 FLORIDA 13.5 102 9 6 22 22 4 4 4 4 80 8 0 GEORGIA 13.5 102 9 6 P P Q 37.34 8 0 8 0 HAWAII 13.5 108 108 22.5 22.5 3 4 34 80.8 88 IDAHO 14 102 102 2 0 2 0 34 3 4 8 0 105.5 ILLINOIS 13.5 H H 2 0 E 18 3 4 E 32 8 0 E 73.28 INDIANA 13.5 102 102 2 0 2 0 3 4 3 4 8 0 8 0 IOWA 13.5 102 9 6 2 0 2 0 3 4 34 8 0 8 0 KANSAS 14 102 102 2 0 2 0 3 4 3 4 8 0 85.5 KENTUCKY 13.5 102 9 6 2 0 2 0 34 34 8 0 J LOUISIANA 13.5 102 9 6 2 0 2 2 3 4 3 7 8 0 8 0 MAINE 13.5 102 102 R 22.4 3 4 3 8 8 0 8 0 MARYLAND 13.5 102 9 6 z z z z 8 0 8 0 MASSACHUSETTS 13.5 102 102 22.4 22.4 3 6 3 6 80 8 0 MICHIGAN 13.5 102 9 6 JJ JJ JJ JJ JJ JJ MINNESOTA 13.5 102 102 2 0 18 3 4 3 4 8 0 8 0 MISSISSIPPI 13.5 102 102 2 0 2 0 34 3 4 8 0 V 8 0 V MISSOURI 1 4 KK 102 9 6 2 0 18 34 32 8 0 73.28 MONTANA 14 102 102 2 0 2 0 3 4 3 4 8 0 8 0 NEBRASKA 14.5 102 102 2 0 2 0 3 4 3 4 8 0 9 5 NEVADA 14 102 102 2 0 2 0 3 4 3 4 8 0 M NEW HAMPSHIRE 13.5 102 102 z z 22.4 3 6 8 0 8 0 NEW JERSEY 13.5 102 9 6 22.4 22.4 3 4 3 4 8 0 8 0 NEW MEXICO 14 102 102 21.6 21.6 34.32 34.32 86.4 86.4 NEW YORK 13.5 102 L 20 11 22.4 34 11 3 6 8 0 8 0 NORTH CAROLINA 13.5 102 9 6 2 0 2 0 38 3 8 8 0 8 0 NORTH DAKOTA 13.5 102 102 2 0 2 0 3 4 3 4 8 0 105.5 OHIO 13.5 102 102 2 0 2 0 x x 8 0 8 0 OKLAHOMA 13.5 102 102 2 0 2 0 3 4 3 4 8 0 9 0

PAGE 60

Table 3-lVehicle Sizes and Weights: Maximum Limits, Jan. 1, 1991-Continued % 52

PAGE 61

Table 3-lVehicle Sizes and Weights: Maximum Limits, Jan. 1, 1991-Continued DES. = Interstate and federally designated state highways. OTHER = All other state highways and supplemental routes HEIGHT WIDT H WEIGH T (1 ,000 POUNDS) (FEET) (INCHES) SINGLE AXLE TANDEM AXLE GROSS VEHIClE WEIGHT WEIGHT WEIGHT DES. OTHER INT. OTHER INT. OTHER INT. OTHER OREGON 14 102 102 2 0 2 0 3 4 3 4 8 0 8 0 PENNSYLVANIA 13.5 102 9 6 22. 4 Z 22. 4 Z 36Z 34Z 80 8 0 RHODE ISLAND 13.5 102 102 22.4 22.4 4 4 R R 4 4 R R 8 0 8 0 SOUTH CAROLINA 13.5 102 9 6 2 0 22 35. 2 W 39.6 80 80.6 SOUTH DAKOTA 14 102 102 2 0 2 0 34 3 4 8 0 K TENNESSEE 13.5 102 102 2 0 2 0 34 34 8 0 8 0 TEXA S 13.5 102 102 2 0 2 0 3 4 3 4 8 0 8 0 UTA H 14 102 102 2 0 2 0 34 3 4 8 0 8 0 VERMONT 13.5 102 102 22.5 22.5 3 6 3 6 8 0 8 0 VIRGINIA 13.5 102 9 6 2 0 2 0 34 34 80 8 0 WASHINGTON 14 102 102 2 0 2 0 3 4 3 4 8 0 8 0 WEST VIRGINA 13.5 102 9 6 2 0 2 0 34 34 8 0 6 5 D D WISCONSIN 13.5 102 102 2 0 2 0 3 4 3 4 8 0 8 0 WYOMING I 14 102 102 II 20 I 20 36 I 36 I 80 I 80 As measured from front of 1st tralllng unit to rear of second When GVW is 73,280 Ibs. or less, single axle may not exceed 22,400 Ibs and tandem, 36,000 Ibs if GVW exceeds 73.280 Ibs., single axle may not exceed 20,000 Ibs and tandem 34,000 Ibs Tractor-semitrailer combo. 60 If semitrailer IS 45 or less Tractor-semitrailer combo. 55 If semitrailer IS greater than 45 and less than 48 If have 54 between first tractor axle and last trailer axle, plus overall length not over 60 48 1st semltraller, 40 2nd trailer, but combined length of the two may not exceed 80, mcludlng connecting dewces Other combinations not shown, 85 73,500 on some roads If over 48, kingpin to rear axle cannot exceed 41 Tractor-twin trailer combinations allowed on state dewgnated routes only Provided distance between klngpln and center of rearmost axle group IS 41 feet or less Comblnatlon of trailers can be 61 feet including tongue, or 75 feet overall Klngpln to rearmost axle cannot exceed 405 feet, If the semitrailer was manufactured before January 1, 1985, the kingpin to rearmost axle dmtance shall not exceed 42 feet 6 Inches A semltraller, regardless of when It wa s manufactured, that IS longer than 48 feet 6 Inches and that has a distance between the klngpln and rearmost axle of 43 feet or less may be operated on the Interstate svstem and have 10 miles of access @ Copyrlghf 1991 J J KELLER & ASSOCIATES, INC Neenah, Wtsconsm 54957-0368 Il. JJ. KK. LL. MM. NN. 00. PP. Cm. RR. If GVW IS below 71,000 lb single axle weight may be 22,400 lb tandem axle weight may be 36,000 lb Variable, contact the Mlchlgan Department of Transportation 14 on Interstate and designated system only, otherw!se 135 feet Measured from point of attachment (klngpln) to end of trailer or load If the semnra!ler (or trader) length Ilmlt exceeds 48 feet, the dmtance between the klngpln and the rearmost axle or a point midway between the two rear axles, If the two rear axles are a tandem axle, shall not exceed 41 feet A 48 trailer and a 60 overall length IS also legal 53 semitrailer must have maximum of 41 from center of kmgpln to center of rear tandem on trailer or center of rearmost axle In the case of a single axle or stretch tandem trailer, 67 5 semnraller combinations and twin trader combmatlons. allowed on state designated system 41 maximum from klngpln to center of rear axle assembly If the semltra}ler IS longer than 48 feet, It must be equipped with a rear underrlde guard If gross weight IS more than 75,185 lb legal tandem weight IS 34,000 lb Sem!trader can only have 2 axles Kmgp!n to center of tandem axle cant exceed 405 feet + 5 feel Eff 4-1 91 decreased to 34,000 Ibs 53

PAGE 62

point to a number of other factors contributing to safe driver performance. For example, their drivers often operate close to home and spend a majority of their nights at home. As a consequence, drivers are familiar with the routes they travel, and management supervision is present at both origin and destination. One trucking company contends that its driver training programs are analogous to those of an airline; 3g each vehicle has unique characteristics, and drivers need specialized training for each configuration just as airline pilots need to log hours in different types of aircraft. However, such a claim overlooks the fact that training requirements and standards for aircraft pilots are set by the Federal Government. No special Federal standards or requirements exist for truck drivers of any type of heavy vehicle, including LCVs. Development of Federal driver standards and rigorous Federal driver training requirements for heavy vehicle drivers is overdue and should be a top priority for DOT 40 Should LCVs be more widely allowed, a number of safe operating practices could disappear because the vehicles would operate on a far broader scale. Without adequate equipment, driver training, and other requirements, typical LCV operating practices are likely to resemble western doubles operations, for which many drivers receive little or no special training. 4 Driver Error Heavy vehicle drivers must continuously process and react to a variety of information, and even momentary lapses in concentration can cause an accident. Human error is involved in over 60 percent of motor carrier accidents. 42 The same factors affect performance of all truck 38 Groups such as the Western Highway Institute and the Western Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials have promoted uniform size and weight standards with some success. 39 Jerry Hughes, Roadway Express, 1nc Q $ presentation at Professional Truck Driver Institute of America public forum, Sacramento, CA, Feb. 26, 1991. ~ offic e of Technology Assessment, op. cit., footnote 1, pp. 12-13. 41 National TrmSpor~tion Safety Bcmd, oP. cit. ~ drivers: attitude, coordination, vision, caution, and fatigue associated with stress, exhaustion, or sleep deprivation. However, the mental demands of driving can differ among different vehicle types and characteristics. Drivers of doubles and triples report greater tiredness after 8-hour hauling sets than they do with conventional tractorsemitrailers. 43 Though noise and cab vibration may contribute more directly to fatigue and are common to all truck configurations, the additional mental strain from driving multiunit combinations probably stems from concerns about trailer sway and instability caused by a greater number of articulation points on combinations hitched together by A-dollies. Drivers contacted by OTA verify the additional driver concerns from driving multitrailer combinations hooked by conventional Adollies. 44 Using a double-drawbar dolly increases driver confidence and decreases mental strain and fatigue. Testing and study are needed to determine the possibly differing effects on drivers of various combination lengths, hitching mechanisms, and number of trailing units. Ongoing FHWA/industry fatigue studies could be expanded in scope to provide valuable driver fatigue comparisons between western doubles and conventional tractorsemitrailers. Sharing the Road With Motorists Since trucks share the highways with the motoring public, attention to the interaction between automobiles, trucks, and drivers is crucial to any examination of LCV issues. Such concerns as roadway visibility and behavior of nearby passing and oncoming traffic are particularly acute because of the wide disparity in scale between LCVs, automobiles, and motorcycles. (Trucks can be four to six times as long as automobiles and are three times as high-see figure 3-2 again.) For instance, trucks often footnote 20. 42 Office of Technology Assessment, oPo cit ? footnote 1, p. 137. 43 overdrive, July 1987, P 43 a Jim Johnston, Owner-Operators Independent Drivers Association, personal communication, March 1991; and truck driver interviews, unedited footage of Saskatchewan LCV operators produced by University of Michigan Transportation Research 54

PAGE 63

block motorists view of other traffic and signs, a phenomenon that would likely worsen with greater use of longer vehicles. 45 Even minor trailer sway concerns motorists, who associate it with the possibility of loss of control of the truck. The continuous small steering corrections employed by some drivers to stay in a traffic lane can cause a wave action down through the vehicle, which can be augmented by curves in the road, uneven pavement, and wind. Even though such motions may not result in instability, the impact on motorists attention to other driving tasks and general behavior has not been rigorously examined. Surveys of automobile drivers show almost universal opposition to any increased use of longer trucks and indicate that the trucks already on the road overwhelm motorists. 47 Such concerns will become increasingly important in the coming decades, particularly as the population of older drivers grows. A substantial portion of older drivers shows poorer perceptual capabilities--such as reaction time, peripheral vision, sharpness of vision, decisionmaking--than the rest of the driving public. In addition, research and survey and accident data suggest that older drivers have relatively more difficulty interacting with trucks and have the strongest negative reactions to them. a INFRASTRUCTURE IMPACTS Although LCVs can carry heavier loads than conventional trucks, recent studies by the Transportation Research Board and other organizations find that LCVs cause less pavement damage per unit of freight moved. This is because they have more axles over which the weight is distributed and because fewer trips are necessary to move the same amount of freight. An industry study 4g estimates the annual Institute under NHTSA contract, 1991; and Nick Patch, Mayflower Elite Fleet, persona l communication, Mar. 12, 1991. 45 Neil D. Lemer et al., Comsis C O W O1der Drivers Perceptions of Problems in Freeway Use, W unpublished report, March 1990, pp. 32-34. 46 w-R*J. Mercer et al., op. cit., footnote 19, P. 69. AT American Automobile Association, survey of members, October 1989 and December 1990. 48 Neil D. ~mer et al., Op. Cit., footnote 45? PP. 12-13, 32-34. reduction in pavement costs would be between $16 million to $55 million if LCVs were allowed on a national basis and significant amounts of freight shifted from conventional trucks to LCVs. Such a shift would occur almost exclusively in States not now allowing LCVs. Precise impact estimates are difficult because they depend greatly on traffic shifts, vehicle mixes, tires and suspensions used, and other factors. Although pavement damage might decrease, highway tax payments used to maintain and repair pavements would also decrease if freight shifts from conventional trucks to LCVs. FHWA finds that in general, State permit fees for overweight vehicles do not cover the cost of administration and highway damage. 50 In addition, the reality of lax weight enforcement on the highways and more (often overweight) marine containers traveling on the road network could outweigh any pavement benefits where turnpike doubles are allowed to operate from ports. The generally poorer offtracking of LCVs (except for triple combinations, as described earlier in this chapter), longer length, and greater gross weight point to a need for redesign and reconstruction of significant portions of the roads where they are used, especially interchanges and bridges. Lane widening, increased turning radii, and provision of climbing/passing lanes will be necessary in some areas to accommodate longer vehicles with poorer off tracking or climbing ability. Longer Buses A legislative proposal by the intercity bus industry seeking permission for nationwide operations of 45-foot over-the-road motor coaches is discussed in box 3-A. Coach manufacturers claim that the turning radius of their proposed design is within the design limits of current highways. Bridges For States to allow LCV operations and comply with the Bridge Formula as well would mean upgrading many bridges to higher design @ Th e Urban Institute, Pavement and Bridge Impacts of Longer Combination Vehicles, study prepared for the Trucking Research Institute, The 55

PAGE 64

Box 3-A--Greater Productivity Through Longer Buses The average length of intercity buses increased from 35 feet to 40 feet in the late 1940s and early 1950s, as vehicle dimension regulations changed. With the passage of 1956 highway legislation came a set of grandfather provisions unique to intercity buses. States that permitted 45-foot transit buses prior to 1956 were allowed to approve 45-foot intercity buses as well. Currently, 45-foot coaches can be operated legally in 15 States and the District of Columbia (see figure 3-A-l). The main advantage of longer coaches is increased productivity. A lavatory-equipped 40-foot coach carries 46 or 47 passengers and has 319 cubic feet of baggage space. A similarly equipped 45-foot coach carries 55 passengers, a 20-percent improvement, and has 410 cubic feet for baggage, a 29-percent improvement. One company estimates that this longer vehicle could save 32 million bus-miles each year and 5.5 million gallons of fuel. 1 No data exist to show whether the 12-percent greater length of 45-foot coaches over 40-foot coaches brings about significant changes in safety and handling, although the manufacturers computer models indicate it does not. Bus accident data do not include vehicle length, so present 45-foot coach operations cannot be compared with other intercity bus operations. Some, but not all, 45-foot coaches have turning radius, rear swingout, and axle weight distribution characteristics that are equivalent to those of 40-foot coaches and within existing Federal and State limitations. Both transit and intercity buses, when fully loaded, can violate Federal axle and gross weight limits and have significant pavement impacts. Nonetheless, axle and gross weight limits are rarely enforced for these vehicles. z 1 Motor Coach Industries, Background Information on 45-Foot Coaches, informational document, April 1991. 2 Jo~ pawn, dirW~r of re~rch, western Highway kti$Ute, personal communimtion, May 8! 19919 .-. loads or replacing Ioad deficient bridges. Even bridges not requiring immediate strengthening could impose an indirect cost because of reduced service life. A trucking industry study, 51 using a similar methodology to that used in the TRB studies, found total bridge costs (not including user costs associated with time delay and additional fuel consumed) associated with national use of LCVs to be on the order of $6 billion. 52 Other subsequent studies on the rural 53 and urban bridge 54 networks used a similar TRB methodology, enhanced to include estimates of ATA Foundation, June 30, 1990. so U s Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Overweight Vehicles: Penalties & Permits, unpublished report, 1987, p. vii. 51 me Urbm Insti~te, Op. Cit., footnote 4952 AS i n th e Transpo~tion Research Board studies, user-borne costs. Moreover these studies used a different bridge rating based on the results of a survey of 49 State highway agencies in calculating bridge replacement costs .55 Estimates for the total bridge costs on the rural and urban Interstate system using this methodology are on the order of $30 billion, comprised of $14 billion replacement costs (1989 prices) and $16 billion associated user-borne costs. Bridge impact estimates of the ability to carry LCVs are sensitive to how highway agencies rate their bridges condition, truck loads and configurations, and construction and material costs. If user borne-costs are considered to reflect total costs mor e completely, the value of time and additional fuel consumed must be included, and the final tota l can double original replacement cost estimates. a discount rate of 7 percent and infinite term for amortizing capital costs were assumed in order to 56

PAGE 65

57

PAGE 66

Costs for bridges are particularly important because these improvements must be made before heavy trucks are allowed to travel on them and require up-front publi c expenditures Changes in funding mechanisms are also needed to reflect more accurately the true infrastructure costs incurred by heavy trucks and pay for necessary bridge and road maintenance. Because of these concerns, AASHTO has taken a strong stand against any efforts to allow wider use of LCVs, maintaining that most of the Nations highways have yet to be reconfigured to standards that accommodate the increases that occurred during the 1980s in truck sizes and weights. = ECONOMIC IMPACTS The economic impacts of a wider LCV network depend on many factors: which and how many States allow them, future fuel prices and tax rates, the cost and extent of infrastructure upgrades, and responses from various sectors of the trucking, and railroad industries, and many others. Thus, it is impossible to make reliable predictions of the economic impacts of greater LCV use. However, some studies have suggested 57 that allowing LCVs on a national scale would probably lead to productivity benefits for the trucking industry and the shippers it serves, perhaps on the order of $2 to $4 billion annually, because increased weights and dimensions would enable a given amount of freight to be carried in fewer trips, reducing the per ton-mile cost of each movement. For example, the addition of a single 28-foot trailer to a double 28foot combination allows 50 percent more product to be hauled at little additional cost and increases flexibility. In addition to the pavement and bridge impacts discussed earlier, other predicted impacts, discussed later, include changes in estimate an annual cost. OTA converted annual costs to total costs. 53 Jose Weissmann and Rob Harrison, Texas Research and Development Foundation, The Impact of Turnpike Doubles and Triple 28s on the Rural Interstate Bridge Network, paper presented at the 70th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, January 1991. 54 Rob Harrison and Jose Weissmann, Texas Research and Development Foundation, Urban trucking operations, shifts in freight traffic from rail to trucking, and provision of staging areas. Box 3-B describes the effects that changing truck weight restrictions can have on a States economic development. LCVs Advocates Many shippers support wider use of LCV. Generally, long-haul carriers and some short-haul carriers with high freight volumes between endpoints will benefit the most from turnpike doubles and triples. Short-haul carriers, carriers serving lowdensity freight corridors, and carriers with proportionately greater operations on urban streets will benefit less from LCVs since they are less able to capitalize on the economies these vehicles afford. Each configuration is attractive to various types of carriers. Truckers most enthusiastic about wider use of triples tend to be large parcel and nationwide Less than Truckload (LTL) carriers. They would like to be able to operate more efficiently over long hauls (or short hauls with high volumes of freight) in more parts of the country. Many of these carriers are already set up to use western doubles for their Iinehaul movements, and the ability to operate triples in all States would probably lead to substantial savings for these companies. Regional LTL carriers, which use both western doubles and conventional semitrailers for their Iinehaul operations, could benefit from either triples or turnpike doubles. Only some truckload (TL) carriers are enthusiastic about LCVs, because many operate on already slender profit margins. Moreover, TL rates are likely to drop more than LTL rates if wider LCV use is allowed, since LTL rates include pickup and delivery charges and tend to be more competitive due to the smaller shipments involved. General commodity TL carriers face additional hurdles in taking advantage of LCVs because few serve a pair of shippers (one at each endpoint) that can consistently offer balanced freight in both directions. Consequently, TL movements tend to be treated on a one-by-one basis with a driver moving a truckload to a receiving dock and then being routed elsewhere for the next load. Efficient use of turnpike doubles for TL movements would require a reorganization into pickup and delivery operations (using single

PAGE 67

trailers) and Iinehaul operations between staging areas (using the doubles) that large fleets would be most likely to afford. Small TL carriers would be less likely to take advantage of the Ionghaul efficiency of turnpike doubles and could suffer in an environment where large firms are able to operate more efficiently over long-haul corridors. = Single commodity TL carriers could benefit from LCVs. Many of these operations are local, and some might need to operate extensively off the Interstate, where the greater maneuverability of triples would be useful. Carriers that make proportionately greater use of Interstate would probably opt for the greater volume of turnpike doubles. Both weigh-out and cube-out traffic will benefit from more LCV S 59 Carriers of bulk commodities, such as chemicals, petroleum products, wood pulp, and gravel, are affected mainly by weight restrictions, and weigh out before they cube out. Consequently, turnpike doubles, which can carry the greatest weight, would be likely to see more bulk use. LTL carriers are more likely to need the flexibility of triples. It is unclear how rapidly trucking companies would adapt to any changes in size and weight restrictions. Some, especially large carriers, would simply couple one more trailer to existing combinations, thereby reaping considerable productivity benefits while incurring few capital investment costs. Others would buy new equipment immediately, while some would wait for existing equipment to wear out. No analysis to date has considered the costs to companies that would result from technology requirements or new safety and driver training programs. LCV Opponents As noted above, not all trucking companies will benefit from wider use of LCVs. Since some overcapacity still exists in both the TL and LTL sectors, weaker companies now struggling to Interstate Bridges: Turnpike Doubles and Triple 28 Costs, unpublished report, May 1991. 55 Rob Harrison et al., Texas Research and Development Foundation, Operating Rating or Inventory Rating: A Multi-Billion Dollar Difference, unpublished report, February 1991. 56 Hal Rives, president, American Association f make a profit would be unlikely to survive if LCVs were widely permitted. Small TL firms, lacking the capital, traffic volumes, and sophisticated management systems needed to exploit LCVs, will lose out to larger, better financed TL competitors, who will be in a position to convert more quickly to LCVs. m Other small companies and independents are likely to suffer as well, since they cannot capitalize on economies of scale to purchase equipment. 61 On grounds of both employment and safety, the Teamsters oppose any expansion of LCVs beyond those States where they are presently allowed. Experience of Teamster locals in those States convinces the Union that those LCVs could not be operated as safely in areas with more traffic. 62 Railroads are concerned about LCVs because of a loss of traffic due to lower trucking costs and rates as well as a potential loss of revenue on traffic for which they would have to lower their rates to meet increased trucking competition. These concerns are particularly acute for railroads in truck competitive markets, such as lumber, chemicals, automobiles, and pulp and food products as well as intermodal container traffic, where significant freight diversion to turnpike doubles can be expected in all regions of the country. Though LTL traffic is not a large portion of overall railroad business, their LTL operations would also be affected, primarily by triples. Rail corridors sensitive to increased use of triples include Chicago, St. Louis, Houston, and Kansas City to the Pacific Northwest and Chicago to Philadelphia. Because they allow combining TL and LTL traffic, Rocky Mountain doubles might reduce rates somewhat, since higher revenue from the 28-foot (LTL) trailer would permit a lower rate for the 48-foot (TL) trailer. 63 Contrary to assertions that most opposition to LCVs has been orchestrated by their industry State Highway and Transportation Officials, written communication with six Senators and Congressmen, Feb. 19, 1991. 57 The Trucking Research Institute has sponsored research on potential longer combination vehicle productivity benefits and infrastructure costs, and the Transportation Research Board has conducted studies on heavier (but not longer) trucks and Turner trucks. 58 paul Roberts The Politics of Longer Combination Vehicles, paper submitted to the 59

PAGE 68

Box 3-B--Calculating the Costs of Economic Development in Wyoming A truck weight study conducted by the Wyoming State Highway Department i found that changing truck size and weight regulations could affect economic development. Wyoming is highly dependent on truck transportation, but unlike most western States, did not qualify for the grandfather clause allowing trucks to operate on Intestates beyond the 80,000 lbs, gross weight limit. According to the study, because trucks in other States could haul more cargo, their transportation costs were significantly lower, making Wyoming products more expensive in comparison. Moreover, some vehicles bypassed the State in favor of neighboring States that permitted heavier vehicles. (To determine the effect of the ban on trucking productivity, the Wyoming State Highway Departmmt had earlier gained permission from the Federal Government to conduct a 2-year study on heavy truck operations.) The study showed that almost 26,000 fewer trips werer made when the heavy trucks were utilized than under previous conditions, saving an estimated 700,000 gallons of feul. Reductions in tranportation costs were observed for several commodities, and some Wyoming firms opened new markets because they could compete with companies in Montana and Canada. However, the report did not examine truck accident data or calculate the costs of infrastructure impacts. Thus, no estimates of these public sector costs were used to offset the trucking industry benefits. After the study and at Wyomings request, a provision allowing the State to permit the operation of trucks weighing greater than 80,000 lbs. on the Interstate system through December 31, 1991, was included in a Federal appropriations bill. 2 1 Wyoting State Highway Department, The Wyoming Weight Study: Increasing the GKOSS Vehicle Weights on Wyoming Interstate Highways, w unpublished report, January 1988. 2 ~b~ic ~W 101-56. opponents, public opinion surveys and OTA staf f interviews show an overwhelmingly negative public reaction to increasing truck dimensions. 64 Moreover, in recent trucking industry surveys, 76 percent of the executives from TL carriers polled indicated they would not be willing to trade higher user taxes for a size increase. 65 Professional truck drivers felt triples and turnpike doubles were less safe than conventional tractortrailer combinations by over 80 percent, and 60 percent said they would feel less safe sharing the road with triples and turnpike doubles if they Federal Highway Administration, n.d. 59 Freight cubes out when trailer capacity s reached before weight limits are exceeded; it weighs out when the opposite occurs. GO Longer Combination Vehicles: A Trucking D i saster, Competitive Policy Reporter, AAR/Intermodal Policy Division Report, vol. 2, No. 5, Mar. 15, 1991. 61 Jim Johnston, owner-operator Indepemknt Drivers Association, Inc., personal communication, were operated everywhere. (However, more than 90 percent of the drivers interviewed indicated they had never driven an LCV.) 66 CONCLUSIONS The number and variety of State grandfather clauses and permit programs governing longer, heavy trucks make clear that the United States does not have uniform truck size and weight requirements, even on Interstate highways. Some State officials contend that the Federal Government has dropped the ball on the issue, 67 and that States do not have adequate resources to ensure that their permitting programs are sufficient to guarantee highway safety. Although not comprehensive, existing accident data do indicate that LCVs are operated safely in those States that allow them under special permit restrictions. These generally include specifications of road type, climate, time60

PAGE 69

of-day restrictions, driver qualification, loading, hill-climbing ability, and maximum speed. Such State permit programs, when enforced, have been a key ingredient in promoting the safety of LCV operations to date. The success of these permitting programs raises the possibility of developing Federal safety requirements, especially for driver training, for western double and conventional tractor-trailer operations, since they share many, but not all, of the operating difficulties of LCVs and account for over 99 percent of all tractor-trailer accidents. Being able to use LCVs on a wider network would bring productivity benefits to a number of motor carriers and could promote economic development in some States. However, many States are not enthusiastic about having more LCVs on their roads and would like the Federal Government to take a more active role in curbing proliferation of LCV operations. 68 Moreover, the trucking industry is not unanimous in its support of LCVs. Each configuration is suited to different industry segments, and some sectors do not favor any changes in the types of vehicles allowed to operate. The benefits of any changes to Federal size and weight laws will accrue to different industry sectors to varying degrees. Some operations, primarily owneroperators and other small outfits, are likely to lose market share if wider use of LCVs is permitted, and they vigorously oppose this idea. 69 Parcel and nationwide LTL carriers would use triples, large TL carriers would use turnpike doubles, and some regional LTL carriers could use either configuration. While LCVs promote increased productivity and fuel efficiency for trucking companies, wider LCV use is likely to divert some rail traffic to trucks, reducing the overall fuel efficiency of the freight transportation system, under most circumstances. Moreover, permits for overweight vehicles generally do not cover the cost of administration and highway damage, and estimates of the total costs to upgrade bridges to accommodate LCVs range from a low of $6 Mar. 22, 1991. 62 Vernon McDougal, Safety and Health Division, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, personal communication, Apr. 2, 1991. 63 Association of American Railroads officials, personal communications, Feb. 13, 1991. billion up to at least $14 billion. When broader public interests and costs such as these are taken into account, they may outweigh the productivity benefits (estimated at $2 to $4 billion annually) to the industry. Accident Data Accident data are insufficient to evaluate the safety impacts of wider use of LCVs. Congress may wish to consider requiring DOT to develop a database for tractor-trailers and LCVs that includes travel data by type of road, road class, geographical data, type of truck (including length of units, speed restrictions, and loading condition), and fatal and nonfatal truck accidents. A collaborative effort for information gathering between NHTSA, the Office of Motor Carriers in FHWA, and the States would be essential. In the future, information from such a database could help DOT develop guidelines for special LCV permitting and for determining routes based on highway geometry, traffic flow, bridge characteristics, traffic densities, vehicle mixes, and grades. Federal Safety Requirements In 1988, OTA suggested that Congress consider Federal training standards and requirements for tractor-trailer drivers. Information gathered since indicates that many companies take no steps to prepare drivers for the transition between conventional tractorsemitrailers and vehicles requiring more skill (such as western doubles and LCVs). The relationship between rearward amplification and trailer sway on multiunit combinations and mental strain and fatigue on drivers is not clear and needs empirical testing. Current FHWA driver fatigue research could be expanded to include analysis of doublev. single-unit combinations and provide valuable, preliminary insight into LCV driver fatigue and how it might differ between combinations. Given the current high rate of driver turnover in some segments of the trucking industry and the considerable training expenses faced by operators, the public has a right to expect that stringent Federal safety equipment and training requirements and stricter operating regulations will be implemented before any change in Federal policy on LCVs. It is time to address a major loophole in Federal highway safety 61

PAGE 70

programs and for Congress to require DOT to develop training standards and requirements for tractor-trailer and LCV drivers, under the Commercial Drivers License program. Although some industry segments remain opposed to Federal standards, acceptance of the concept has grown substantially over the past several years. 70 Performance standards are needed for braking efficiency (particularly for unloaded vehicles), rearward amplification, rollover threshold, minimum grade-climbing ability, lowand high-speed offtracking, steering sensitivity, and vehicle suspension. Congress should require DOT to develop and implement appropriate studies and inservice fleet testing of safety enhancing technologies on LCVs, including antilock brakes, double-drawbar dollies, and sufficiently powerful engines. Vehicles from existing LCV operating fleets could be used for such a test. On completion of the appropriate studies and operational tests, Congress may wish to require DOT to mandate adequate control measures to mitigate the handling problems and/or infrastructure impacts of LCVs. The use of antilock brakes on all axles, double-drawbar dollies for trailers less than 40 feet in length, air suspensions, and automatic slack adjusters on trailers as well as tractors, or equivalent systems, could be required or encouraged through weight or other incentives. Heavier trailer forward requirements should also be mandated to improve control. Such test programs and development and implementation of Federal standards must precede any changes to Federal laws applicable to heavy vehicle operation to ensure nationwide highway safety. LCVs and Infrastructure Improvements Each configuration of LCV needs to be considered against the sort of uniform performance standards discussed above. The infrastructure implications of turnpike doubles are quite different than those of triples. The safety concerns of triples could be addressed by technologies identified in this paper, whereas the infrastructure demands of turnpike doubles involve upgrading substantial portions of the highway network. Taxes and fees for heavy trucks must be set at levels adequate in order to cover their impact on the infrastructure. 64 me 1$)89 Legislative Survey Composite Report prepared by the American Automobile Associations (AAA) Department of Market Analysis and Research found that 89 percent of AAA members Automobile Drivers and LCVs The overwhelming opposition of motorists to large, heavy trucks is, and should continue to be, a major concern for the trucking industry. It is possible that motorists discomfort with even conventional truck configurations is so great that the industry will be unable to counter the strong negative public reaction to longer ones. Since the issue of the publics reactions to longer trucks has disturbed the industry in the recent past, trucking companies may want to weigh the costs in goodwill of proposed productivity improvements. Just as truck drivers need adequate special instruction in operating their equipment safely in mixed truck and car traffic, automobile drivers need special instruction in sharing the road with trucks. Congress could consider requiring DOT to develop guidelines on this for automobile driver training courses and instruction materials, in cooperation with State motor vehicle administrators. are strongly opposed to increasing truck lengths. A 1990 poll conducted by the Frederick/Schneiders Inc. yielded similar results. 65 Memorandum of Interstate Truckload Carriers Conference, Feb. 11, 1991. 66 WA Study of th e operating Practices of ExtmLong Vehicles, Transportation Research and Marketing, December 1990, p. 48. 67 Nom Lfidgren, dir~tor of mOtOr carriers> W Department of Highways, personal communication, May 3, 1991. 68 S= ~ves, op. cit., footnote 56; and ibid 69 Jim Johnston, executive director, OWnerOperators Independent Drivers Association, Inc., personal communication, May 3, 1991; and Rita Bontz, Independent Truck Drivers Association, personal communication, May 7, 1991. 70 Jim Johnston, owner-operators Independent Drivers Association, Inc., and Ed Kynaston, Professional Truck Drivers Institute of America, personal communications, May 1991. 62

PAGE 71

Appendix A Supplementary Tables Table A-limpact on States of Change in Bridge Program Federal Match (based on 1991 program apportionment) Current State Hypothetical State Current State Hypothetical State matching share matching share matching share matching share at 20 percent at 25 percent at 20 percent at 25 percent State (millions of dollars) (millions of dollars) State (millions of dollars) (millions of dollars) . -$7. 2 0.9 0.9 4.5 11.1 3.2 17.2 1.0 2.4 6.0 6.7 0.9 0.9 9.9 5.7 6.3 6.2 6.8 7.0 2.1 4.2 19.3 7.5 4.3 4.8 13.4 $9. 7 1.1 1.1 6.0 14.8 4.2 23.0 1.3 3.2 8.0 8.9 1.2 1.1 13.1 7.6 8.4 8.3 9.1 9.3 2.8 5.6 25.7 10.0 5.7 6.4 17.9 Montana . . . Nebraska . . . Nevada . . . . NewHampshire. . . New Jersey . . . New Mexico . . . New York . . . North Carolina.. . . North Dakota... . . Ohio . . . . Oklahoma . . . Oregon . . . . Pennsylvania . . Rhode Island . . South Carolina.. . . South Dakota . . Tennessee . . . Texas . . . . Utah . . . . Vermont . . . Virginia . . . . Washington . . . West Virginia . . Wisconsin . . . Wyoming . . . Total . . . . 1.8 4.2 0.9 1.9 15.3 1.1 34.1 6.9 1.2 10.4 7.3 2.0 30.7 0.9 2.6 1.6 8.7 12.9 0.9 1.9 7.7 8.5 9.5 5.8 0.9 2.4 5.7 1.1 2.5 20.4 1.5 45.4 9.2 1.6 13.9 9.7 2.6 41.0 1.1 3.5 2.2 11.6 17.2 1.1 2.5 10.2 11.3 12.6 7.8 1.1 339.7 452.9 Table A-2-States Receiving Matching Share Reductions for Federal Lands and Proposed Low-Density Bonuses Federal lands Proposed Federal iands Proposed matching share low-density matching share low-density reductions bonus Total reductions bonus Total (1991) (millions (1992) (miiliins (millions (1991) (millions (1992) (millions (millions State ofdollars) ofdoilars) ofdollars) State ofdollars) ofdollars) ofdollars) Alaska . . $22.7 $35 $57.7 Nevada . . 2.2 28 30.2 Arizona . . 9.9 no 9.9 New Mexico . 4.3 34 38.3 California . . 21.4 no 21.4 North Dakota . no 26 26.0 Colorado . . 3.2 no 3.2 Oregon . . 4.5 no 4.5 Hawaii . . 0.5 0.5 South Dakota . 1.2 26 27.2 Idaho . . . 6.7 24 30.7 Utah . . . 5.7 20 25.7 Montana . . 2.3 35 37.3 Washington . 1.9 no 1.9 Nebraska . . no 24 24.0 Wyoming . . 3.8 28 31.8 The State matching share requirements for major Federal highway programs are reduced for those 14 States with large Federal land holdings. The reductions are calculated on a sliding scale depending on the size of the Federal holdings. SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991. 63 US GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1991 0 292-869 : QL 3


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EUUOB3PS9_AVXT0M INGEST_TIME 2017-05-24T20:58:49Z PACKAGE AA00055547_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES