CMV Safety | Freight Logistics & Policy | Truck Size & Weight | TACT | Wireless, Vehicle-to-Infrastructure Communication

<< Back to News

Is ‘Transformational Change’ Possible in How Freight is Moved Via the Surface Transportation System in the US?

How can we live with the inevitability of the HPV and LCV while maximizing system productivity and safe travel for all?

ITRE, in a posting to the COVERLAB portion of its website,  argued that rather than to pursue an incremental approach to allowing longer and heavier commercial motor vehicle (trucks), perhaps what is needed is a ‘transformational’ change to our very concept of operations governing  the surface transportation of freight by commercial motor vehicles.

The present concept of commercial vehicle transport in the US is defined in terms of the length/width,  and weight of commercial motor vehicles and the classes of roads that they are permitted to travel. For years, our notion of a heavy commercial motor vehicle has been that of a  five axle tractor and  102 inch (width) semi-trailer with a gross vehicle weight rating of 80,000 pounds. For years, the tractor and 48 ft (length) semi-trailer has been the ‘standard’ combination unit truck (CUT) used for roadway design purposes. 

Combination unit trucks with 53 ft. (length) trailers, and tractors pulling two (usually 28ft trailers) . . . referred to as ‘doubles’ . . . were  restricted to a ‘network’ defined by the state consisting of interstate roads and selected state and US-numbered highways/primary routes. Over time, the trucking industry lobbied  for a seamless  increase in routes that could be traveled by 53ft trailers, approaching a point in time where a 6-axle, 53 ft. trailer with a weight allowance approaching 100,000 lbs would come to be regarded as the ‘standard workhorse vehicle,’  allowed to travel on all federal aid primary routes (i.e., for all practical purposes ‘unrestricted’).

In many states, weight exemptions permitted trucks in excess of the 80,000 lb. GVWR (interstate) limit to use non-interstate roads, even though pavement design and bridge design on secondary routes were almost universally less rigorous than that applied to interstate facility design.  States (e.g., Maine and Vermont) put pressure on the Federal Government to relax weight restrictions on interstates to encourage heavier vehicles to move from state roads to the more capable interstate environment. The extent to which these pilot studies achieved this goal remain under review.

Aside from concerns as to whether the 6-axle CUT with a 53 ft. trailer and a 97,000 lb. GVWR requirement could be operated ‘safely’ on the interstate, the concern of many was that once the 53ft trailer (with or without the addition of a sixth axles and accompanying braking capability) would become  the ‘standard workhorse vehicle’ and it’s use would be extended  to the non-interstate  environment (with or without an increase in weight) where studies have documented CUT fatal crash rates (on non-interstate  roads) as being 2 to 3 times those on interstate roads.

The trucking industry in the US would have the American public believe that there is a true national imperative in the US that demands a widespread relaxation of truck size and weight restrictions in the name of ‘higher productivity’ and that this imperative transcends all reasonable regard for roadway design and construction compatibility as well as potential impact on highway safety.  There can be no doubt that to the extent that a carrier is able to maximize the tonnage that he can transport while minimizing the associated requirement for power units, drivers, and fuel, the carrier  will indeed be more ‘productive’ (i.e., more profitable).  Those who argue for more productive vehicles also claim that they can contribute to lowered emissions/improved air quality as well as to reduced truck-induced congestion.

No one would question the ‘business sense’ of wanting to maximize the amount that can be carried while minimizing the personnel, equipment, and fuel costs associated with its transport.  The question is whether or not the incremental relaxation of allowable vehicle dimensions (principally length) and weight represent the best means for doing so . . . especially in the context of increased passenger and freight demands upon a shared use roadway environment with significant deferred maintenance needs and a growing inadequacy in terms of needed capacity.

If one remembers the saying associated with the early Intelligent Vehicle Highway System (IVHS) program – more recently referred to as the Intelligent Transportation System, or ITS) that we cannot ‘build our way out of’ the problem,  one questions whether the same is true with respect to our current notion of how we transport freight within the current surface transportation system. What area the alternatives to our current approach of ‘incremental improvement.’

Consider the notion implied by ‘reconfiguration.’  Our current system configuration, if you will, consists of attempts to meet the needs of passenger travel and freight transportation as being satisfied by a single shared-use roadway system – supplemented in small part by the use of rail.  Our approach to an increase  in demand upon the shared use system has traditionally  been to build more of the same (i.e., more roads, more lane miles, etc.) . . . up to the point where we have run out of the additional right of way to ‘build our way out of the problem.’

With the construction of the interstate system in the US, traffic – both passenger and freight – diverted from the state system to the interstate system in search of increased safety and reduced travel time to the point that the interstate system is now congested and where much of the non-interstate system has fallen into a state of disrepair. It is not clear to many that allowing Higher Productivity Vehicles (HPVs . . . including Longer Combination Vehicles (LCVs) to our interstates represents a viable alternative . . . especially if the interstate network remains the preferred environment for passenger travel as well.

As the population of the US grows, will not the reduced trucking ‘footprint’ claimed for HPVs and LCVs be replaced by the increase in vehicle demand associated with passenger travel?  Consider too that as the population of the US ages and the demand for smaller more fuel efficient vehicles continues to increase, the ‘mix’ of HPVs, LCVs, and smaller vehicles operated  by older drivers creates an undesirable state of affairs  from an overall highway safety perspective.
The question is how we might ‘reconfigure’ our current surface transportation system comprised of a shared use, multi-level (in terms of design) network of roadways. Consider the following. 

What if we were to adopt a long term, transportation system improvement policy with the goal, over time, of transitioning all heavy truck (freight) transport to the interstate system – i.e.., that part of the system best able to accommodate HPV and LCV travel? Is this not what the Maine and Vermont pilot projects are, in principle, trying to achieve?

Passenger travel on the interstate would not be prohibited, although to be equitable, would also be tolled. Total elimination of passenger travel from the interstate system would not represent a cost effective utilization of interstate capacity.  Federal assistance to the states would expedite efforts to upgrade the state and federal (non-interstate) portions of individual state roadway systems.  There is already evidence of this at the state level, but not as part of any overall national transportation policy for dealing with the safe and coordinated movement of persons and goods.

The transfer over time of passenger travel from the interstate to state roads could re-invigorate local and roadside businesses (and employment) that were decimated by the construction of the interstate system.   Interstate travel would be tolled for commercial users.  The absence of tolls on non-interstate roads and an improved secondary roadway travel environment would become an incentive for passenger users to shift over time from the interstate to the parallel state network of roads.

The creation of a ‘baby interstate’ (of improved state highways constructed to approach current interstate standards) would not solve the problem of HPVs and LCVs seeking to use the state system as the ‘first’ and ‘last mile’ of the supply chain served by trucks. A largely segregated system of freight and passenger travel could work only if consideration is given to more cost effective approaches to freight distribution.  If HPVs and LCVs become the vehicles of choice for the movement of freight between the interstate and local/non-interstate manufacturer/customer, we will end up with the same , or likely worse, problems than we have today. 

Part of this overall ‘reconfiguration’ concept would have to create a cost effective means to transfer goods moved on the interstate by HPVs and LCVs to smaller vehicles that are compatible with travel on state and local roads, or by a change in how customers access goods at the local level. Rather than everything being off loaded and distributed to the local ‘box’ store for direct customer pickup, the system might have to be one where the customer traveled to the interstate distribution point. The box store and the major distribution center would potentially become more one and the same.  The distribution of products to the customer’s doorstep would remain an option, but with more of the cost carried by the customer than the carrier. The elimination of the transfer from the centralized distribution center to the local ‘box store’ could save the business significant transportation costs and from a safety perspective, reduce the volume of large trucks on non-interstate roadways.  Gallis (personal communication) has discussed how a similar system reconfiguration of the current storage and drayage function might have similar benefits within the context of an urban freight mobility plan.

The transfer of freight at the interstate/state roadway exchange point would moreover have to become less labor and storage intensive.  The use of LCVs would have to become increasingly sophisticated in terms of the manner in which goods were ‘containerized’ for breakdown and transport for the ‘final mile.’ Likewise, those preparing goods for shipment (i.e., manufacturers) would have to become more sophisticated in the way that their products were ‘packaged’ for transport by LCVs and other HPVs.

In addition to allowing HPVs and LCVs to maximize their effectiveness in the overall supply chain by minimizing restrictions on their use of the interstate network, an essential element of a ‘reconfigured’ surface system has to involve a re-thinking of how to more efficiently accommodate the ‘first mile’ and the ‘last mile’ of freight/goods movement.  Can current concepts of ‘containerization’ and automated handling of containerized freight be extended to the application where goods are transported from their origin to the interstate and/or from the interstate to the final customer?

If this sounds like heresy, then propose a different alternative. More of the same does not seem to most to be a viable, long-term option.