Some issues unite local leaders of ideological spectrum states such as the possibility of large-scale trucks, much larger than typical highway tractor-tralers, reduce roads and tear infrastructure.
More than 2,200 local government officials like me – from all 50 states, blue and red strongholds and in the middle – recently to tell Congress MPs to tell that they are dead against proposals to allow such trucks.
As the Congress, the Congress debated the highway bill, with measures, the current will increase the federal weight limit for tractor-tralers from 80,000 pounds to 156,000 pounds.
Congress members in their group letterOfficials insisted that many areas are already struggling to live with the backlog of road maintenance due to lack of funds.
“We strongly oppose the proposals in the Congress that will allow any increase in the weight or length of the truck. A heavy single-troller truck or long-term double-trailer trucks will only make our current situation worse,” officials wrote, including county and municipal officials, public work directors and county engineers.
He said, “Truck traffic operates millions of miles on local roads and bridges across the country, and any large truck permissible on our interstate means that additional trucks that eventually find their way on our local infrastructure,” he wrote.
Large trucks “will cause great damage to our transport infrastructure, the cost of billions of dollars is that local government budgets cannot compromise only the routes that American motorists use every day.”
A proposal will create a 10 -year “pilot project” Permission for 91,000 pound trucks on roads. Another The trucks will allow automobiles to be permanently operated at 88,000 pounds. Another An authority will allow any governor to declare a “crisis” and gain the maximum truck on the interstate – an authority which is currently with the President only. And another dramatically expansion will expand where large -scale log trucks are allowed to be operated. Log trucks can weigh 156,000 pounds, 38 tonnes more than the current weight range.
Studies have shown that heavy and long trucks damage the infrastructure, especially the bridge. Putting nuances on possible damage, A study earlier this year by coalition against big trucks It was found that 82,457 bridges would suffer a major loss from various proposals.
Should the Congress increase the weight limit of trucks by 88,000 pounds, concluding the report that 65,157 local bridges would be at risk, with a replacement cost of $ 70.6 billion. If the Congress approves the 91,000 -pound truck limit, the number of risky bridges increases to 68,654 with a replacement cost of $ 78.7 billion. And the boundaries were pushed up to 97,000 pounds, with 82,457 bridges at risk, costing $ 98.5 billion to replace.
The heavy damage to the infrastructure is bilateral – red and blue states will get a hammer. States with the highest possible bridge replacement cost include Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregan, Virginia and Washington.
None of the various proposals to increase the size of the truck include additional funds for infrastructure.
It is not just local officials across the country, standing together to remove large trucks. For the beginning, the US Transport Department, in its own2016 broad truck size and weight limit studyRecommended against any such increase.
In addition, many group are opposed to measuresCauses of safety issuesIs associated with large trucks, including many law enforcement organizations and many people who run large rigs. Owner-Operator Driver Association, Truck Load Career Association andTeamstors oppose big trucks,
Only major corporations stand for profit as they want to reduce shipping costs, leaving local governments and their taxpayers to give foot to the bill.
Johnson County, Texas Commissioner Rick Bailey said, “The proposals will destroy our aging, thwart roadways and bridges.” “If the MPs approved the big trucks, the Congress will still be building another unfit mandate which has been pushed on local governments and taxpayers. This is not correct.”
Jeff Krugger is a township supervisor for the New Market Township, Minan.
