WASHINGTON—April 24, 1997. Steve Wellington of Mesa, Ariz., tells the Senate Commerce Committee how an 80,000-pound double trailer truck killed his eight-month pregnant wife, Cathy, and seriously injured four of his children. Wellington tells how he joined Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways “because it is a group of organized citizens who have experiences similar to mine, working to promote better truck safety.” He urges the committee to pass legislation that would place new limits on the size of trucks operating on interstate highways.
CHICAGO—May 28, 1997. Doctors and police join members of the Illinois Citizens for Safe Roads at a press conference urging the area’s congressional delegation to oppose efforts by the American Trucking Associations to overturn the federal freeze on triple trailer trucks.
RICHMOND, VA.—June 5, 1997. Members of the Virginia Coalition for Safe Roads stand in front of a triple trailer truck and urge the state’s congressional delegation to oppose any federal legislation that would allow larger trucks on the state’s highways.
Sound familiar? It should. Press conferences like these occur regularly around the nation. Hosted by “grassroots citizens groups,” the media events feature families of truck accident victims who describe how they have channeled their grief into action by fighting the trucking industry’s efforts to open the nation’s roads to ever-bigger trucks. At other press conferences, emergency room doctors and state troopers describe the tragedy of crashes involving bigger trucks. The press conferences always feature catchy visuals, such as a 100-foot long triple trailer truck or poster-size photographs of family members killed in truck accidents. The neatly packaged events contain all the elements of a compelling news story: crying victims fighting back against corporate greed, an easy villain and great visuals.
The sponsors of the press conferences, the Coalition Against Bigger Trucks (CABT) and Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways (CRASH) and their affiliates, are front groups for the railroad industry, which has poured cash and technical support into the groups since 1991 as part of a national effort against changes in federal transportation laws that could divert freight to bigger trucks. Railroads and manufacturers of railroad cars and other equipment have enlisted safety advocate and Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook, families of truck crash victims and a host of consultants to combat a trucking industry anxious to build its image as a safe form of transportation.
Television viewers may remember a 1991 commercial featuring a giant truck bearing down on a woman driver and two small children. That commercial, which bore the disclaimer that it was paid for by the Association of American Railroads (AAR), helped convince Congress to freeze federal truck size and weight limits. It also signaled the start of a guerrilla campaign by the railroad industry to defeat any future attempts by truckers and freight shippers to increase truck sizes.
Railroads shunned the limelight after that campaign, enlisting their suppliers as the primary source of revenue for CRASH’s campaign of press conferences and lobbying by victims and their families. The effort heated up in 1995 as Congress began debating legislation creating the National Highway System and the Department of Transportation prepared to open four Southwestern states to Mexican trucks. The railroads strategy, as outlined in a confidential memo, was to influence DOT’s ongoing studies on truck size and weight policy, build public opposition to allowing Mexican trucks into the United States, and prevent Congress from enacting any wholesale increases in truck sizes and weights either as part of the NHS bill or the 1997 reauthorization of a larger highway law.
The AAR, the lobbying group for large railroads, doesn’t like to talk about its behind-the-scenes support of CRASH and CABT, which it helped create. While the association acknowledges spending more than $5 million on the campaign since 1995, it won’t talk about where the money went. An August 25, 1996, CRASH press conference at San Francisco City Hall featured AAR engineering consultant Roger Mingo standing in front of a giant truck and telling reporters about his study concluding that senior citizens are 3.2 times more likely to die in a heavy truck crash than drivers under the age of 65.
Testifying before Congress on April 24, 1997, on behalf of CABT affiliate Texans for Safe Roads, Lufkin, Texas Mayor Louis Bronaugh cited a study by two University of Texas professors asserting that increased use of bigger trucks would cost $12 .6 billion in highway bridge reconstruction or replacement. The study was funded by AAR.
In southern California in October, Californians for Safe Highways, a CABT affiliate, began distributing an analysis of the safety record of triple trailer trucks authored by none other than AAR consultant Mingo.
The national lobbying and public relations effort has had the rail industry’s desired effect. Attempts by Canada to allow longer trucks into the United States under the North American Free Trade Agreement have met with staunch resistance from DOT. A 1995 proposal to exempt delivery trucks from federal safety regulations was watered down by Congress to a pilot project following a CRASH press conference. The American Trucking Association has found little support in Congress for wholesale changes in truck sizes as part of legislation reauthorizing the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act.
The campaign was not without its financial and political costs. AAR has devoted half of its $10.6 million lobbying budget to the issue over the past three years at a time when Congress was deregulating the railroad industry and investigating railroad safety. The anti-truck efforts have also angered the trucking industry, a potent political force both nationally and in state capitals.
The railroads’ obsession with trucks is not new, nor is it unwarranted. Trucks are getting bigger and carrying increasing amounts of freight. Federal weight limits came into being in 1956 with the creation of the Interstate Highway System. That law set limits at 73,280 pounds. The maximum weight was increased to 80,000 pounds in 1975. The 1982 Surface TransportationAssistance Act required all states to allow 48-foot trailers and trucks hauling twin 28-foot trailers on interstates. With the exception of the twin 28-foot trucks, LCVs (longer combination vehicles) are limited to certain areas of the country. Turnpike doubles (twin 48-foot trailers) make up 2 percent of the nation’s truck fleet and operate on only 1 percent of the nation’s roads. Triple trailers make up less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the national fleet and operate in 16 states, mostly in the west.
The number of trucks used in for-hire transportation increased 24 percent between 1982 and 1992. The use of LCVs doubled over the same period. Fifty-five percent of the nation’s freight travels by truck, while only 16.2 percent goes by railroad, according to DRl-McGraw Hill’s annual freight transportation forecast.
Railroads say their fight against increased truck capacity is a matter of economic life or death. Every time trucks get larger, trucking companies drop their rates to fill the additional space, tempting railroad customers to switch modes. AAR paints a doomsday scenario called a “service quality spiral,” which its economists say would happen if the trucking industry was allowed to operate LCVs nationwide. Lower rates, less freight and higher unit costs for truck-competitive freight would reduce the profitability of trains. Railroads would then reduce the number of train starts, slowing service and decreasing reliability. This would increase the total costs of using rail service, requiring railroads to further lower rates and raising unit cost.
Both the General Accounting Office and the DOT say AAR’s gloomy economic analysis does not take into account increased productivity from railroad mergers and technological advances. Between 1959 and 1992, according to DOT, railroad productivity increased an average of 5.9 percent annually.
The economic impact of larger trucks on railroads and highways is hard to quantify. Ordered by Congress to take a comprehensive look at the increasing use of larger trucks, DOT has struggled to put together an accurate picture. The agency is nearly a year late in releasing its assessment of what would happen to railroads if truck size and weight increased. DOT officials say they are having difficulty creating an accurate economic model to measure the amount of diversion of freight from railroads to bigger trucks. Privately, they acknowledge infighting among themselves and feeling pressure from truckers and railroads to skew the results one way or the other. In the meantime, truckers continue their relentless push for increased productivity.
Trucking companies and freight shippers employ the “salami tactic” to nibble away at opposition to bigger trucks. They press at the state level to increase truck size and weights. Neighboring states follow suit to remain competitive, resulting in eventual pressure to set a new national standard. Congress is a frequent player in this, approving exemptions to federal weight laws for individual states or industries. The House Transportation Committee voted in September to exempt sugar cane haulers in Louisiana, logging trucks in Maine and New Hampshire and distributors of concrete panels in Colorado from federal truck weight laws.
The ATA tried earlier this year to win railroad support of a proposal to allow states to set their own truck size and weight policy and to allow triple trailers in four additional new states where the big trucks are currently allowed. Railroads didn’t bite, and ATA has dropped the proposal for now.
Some trucking companies, however, continue to push their own interests before Congress. A group of shippers and some trucking companies, for example, are urging Congress to increase the maximum federal truck weight to 97,000 pounds, which would allow them to carry heavier cargo such as iron and steel.
Trucking companies like United Parcel Service, which consolidate freight at regional hubs prior to delivery to a final destination, like triples because the smaller trailers are more cost-effective than hauling half-empty trailers. With manufacturers and stores increasingly relying on the just-in-time delivery of raw materials and products, some trucking companies want to operate more triples.
Triples, which are longer than a 10-story building is tall, star in anti-truck ads because of the visceral reaction they provoke. Truck drivers don’t like the big rigs either, saying their tendency to sway at highway speeds makes them more difficult to handle than other trucks. The trucks are also difficult to brake, with many drivers using a technique known as power braking, in which they put one foot on the brake to slow the truck while applying gas to keep the truck straight. “It’s like pulling a snake,” says Joe Hyatt, a manager at Yellow Freight System’s Salt Lake City, Utah, terminal.
Trucking companies insist the triples are safe, citing statistics showing the rate of accidents for triples is lower than other vehicles in the states where they are allowed to operate. The trucking-industry funded Traffic Safety Alliance distributes testimonials from state highway officials praising the safety record of triple trailer trucks.
CRASH and CABT groups cite railroad industry studies showing that on a per capita basis, the triples are actually more dangerous than other LCVs.
The federal government is split on the safety of bigger trucks. The General Accounting Office says poor state record-keeping, the small number of triples in operation and their restriction to certain routes make it difficult to assess how safe the big rigs are.
A DOT study concluding that LCVs are safer than non-LCVs was not released for more than a year after its completion because of complaints by senior DOT officials about the accuracy of the conclusions. The trucking industry is citing the study in its efforts to offset the damage done by the safety groups and tow in support of new triple routes and larger trucks.
The current battleground between the two industries is southern California, where trucking companies have worked for more than two years to build support for a proposal to allow triple trailers on portions of Interstates 15 and 40 in eastern San Bernadino County. Doing so, they claim, would make the economically depressed region a distribution hub, creating 1,570 new jobs and saving the trucking industry $49 million annually.
The safety groups have fought hard and well in California, convincing the state Legislature to pass a non-binding resolution opposing the routes. Because triples have never been allowed in California, Congress must approve the exemption from current federal law. CRASH and Californians for Safe Highways, a CABT affiliate, are buttonholing voters at shopping malls to sign petitions urging the region’s congressional delegation to oppose the triple routes.
To help make their case, trucking companies are employing the Traffic Safety Alliance, the nonprofit educational group that promotes the safety record of triples. The group draws its funding from the trucking industry and consists solely of public relations consultants who proffer packets of safety statistics, offer lawmakers and reporters rides in triples and offer pro-triple truck drivers as witnesses at public meetings on the proposal.
The California campaign has taken a new twist in recent months. The powerful California Trucking Association has begun lashing out at railroads for funding the safety groups. “The railroad industry has been spending all of its time and money on mega-mergers, front groups and anti-truck propaganda, while its own rail service and safety deteriorates. Clearly, the railroad industry needs to examine its own safety record and re-prioritize their objects,” said Joel Anderson, executive vice president of the California Trucking Association.
CTA, which is separate from the ATA, has begun publicizing safety and service problems at the Union Pacific Railroad. The 135-year-old railroad is suffering a service and safety meltdown as a result of its 1996 acquisition of the Southern Pacific Railroad, which left the western United States with only two major railroads. At the same time, Norfolk Southern Railroad and CSX Transportation are seeking federal approval to split Conrail between them. This big East Coast merger, combined with the Union Pacific’s problems, has brought the railroad industry under scrutiny from federal regulators concerned about the impact of rail mergers on safety and service.
While ATA so far is distancing itself from the anti-rail activities in California, the association has threatened to seek economic reregulation of the railroad industry if the safety groups continue their attacks. In May, ATA raised concerns about rail safety to the Surface Transportation Board, which must approve the split-up of Conrail.
The board is to vote on the merger next spring. At the same time, Congress will be considering legislation reauthorizing both the board and federal railroad safety regulations. Companies that ship large amounts of freight want Congress to increase economic regulation of the railroads. Unions want Congress to impose tougher safety laws on the railroads. And the trucking industry, which will be pushing for bigger and heavier trucks in the highway bill that will be debated into next year, will have a prime target for revenge on the railroads.