Moving Ahead: 1991 Surface

Transportation Legislation

June 1991

OTA-SET-496

NTIS order #PB91-212159
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)
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
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
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
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

Becky Brady Research Institute

National Conference of State Legislators

David Ewing

Sara Campbell American Trucking Associations

Surface Transportation Policy Project

John N. Fischer

Joseph Canny Congressional Research Service

U.S. Department of Transportation

Baruch Fischhoff

J. L. Carter, Jr. Carnegie-Mellon University

Association of American Railroads

Russ Fiste

Bill Chaddock Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance

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
Barbara Harsha

National Association of Governors’

Highway Safety Representatives

Nick Patch

Mayflower Van Lines

Susan Perry

J.F. Hornbeck American Bus Association

Congressional Research Service

Craig Phillip

Jim Johnston Southern Pacific Railroad

Owner-Operators Independent Drivers

Association, Inc. John Reith

American Trucking Associations

Richard R. John

Transportation Systems Center T. Peter Ruane

American Road &Transportation

Ed Kynaston Builders Association

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

Roger Mingo Congressional Research Service

R.D. Mingo & Associates

Brian Vogel

Brian O’Neill Association of American Railroads

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

vii
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
CONTENTS

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
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
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 Assessment, 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 OTA’s

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.
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 Nation’s 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 Nation’s 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
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
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-l—Types of Highway Improvement

Financed by Federal Aida

100%

75%

50%

25%

o%

19801981198219831984 19851988198719881989

5
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

OTA’s 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,

● 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 Nation’s 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, today’s 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

State’s road are in such poor condition.

Estimates for repair costs exceed the State’s 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 Nation’s 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
Table 1-1—1989 Congestion Levels in Major Citiesa

-.

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
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
ests are emerging as full-fledged players in trans- FHWA, 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 FHWA’S 1991 and 1992 budget requests reflect some increases in the resources

devoted to R&D, the time is right to expand

FHWA’S 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, OTA’s 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
Table 1-2—Proposed 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

aEstimated.

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 1-

2); 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
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
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 Nation’s 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 State’s aportionment

Highways:

Interstate construction . .

Interstate 4-R . . . . . . . . .

Primary . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Secondary . . . . . . . . . . . .

Urban . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mass transit:

Discretionary. . . . . . . . . .

Formula . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

State’s 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

State’s 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
[ I L0 I I

13
I I I I 00 f4J

14
— —— — —

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 planning, 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 State’s or region’s 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 primary- and 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-l—Yield 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
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. ’3 (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 90-

percent 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 Administration’s interest in

limiting Federal assistance for transit in large

13 Fi=al ~.PaCitY refers to a State’s relative ability

to raise revenue from taxes and other sources. Historically, a State’s fiscal capabilities have not been

considered in apportioning Federal program fimds,

although States with large Federal land holdings

have received special consideration. A State’s 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
\

0E
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 impor- for 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, Traffic

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
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 planning 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 lane- and 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 year’s 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);

Ž decreased travel time (one point per X second decrease on designated arterial);

• decreased hours per month of severe congestion;

● improved air quality;

—-.——— . . I

19
● increased ridership Per capita and in the off-peak and better on-time performance of transit, or other

appropriate transit indices; and

● improved level of service for major highways based on adopted standards.

Nonquantifiable achievements that earn bonus points

●

●

●

●

●

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 performance deteriorates. The MPO’s 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
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

Administration’s 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
. .

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 transit’s 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
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 CenturyN 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 and

H.R. 1351 and supporting documents, U.S.

Department of Transportation, Federal Highway

Administration “Facts Sheets, ” 1991; and U.S.

Department of Transportation, Federal Highway

Administration, Moving America Into the 21st

Century (Washington, DC: 1991).

3 U. S. CongressOffice 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
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 State’s 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 shareb

(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

Safetyc

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
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

transit’s 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

Safetyb

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
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
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

Safetyb

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
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 They

are charged with preparing the federally required

Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)

which is a region’s 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:

● Require States to prepare and adopt a 5-

year 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.

● 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.

● 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.

● 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
programs is beyond the scope of this document.

However, OTA’s 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. DOT’s statement

of R&D policy5 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 State’s

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 FHWA’s research program at the

end of the program’s 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
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)

27b Contract and staff research Highway Trust Fund 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.

UMTA’s 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.
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 Nation’s 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

company’s 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 provide“superior overall performance.”3

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 company’s 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
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. FHWA’S

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 Administration’s draft

report, “Research and Technology Program 1992-

1996” (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
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
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,

OTA- SET-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

Nation’s 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

agenda5 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
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 48- and twin 28-

foot 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 OTA’s 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 Nation’s

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 26- to 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

45- to 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 45- to 48-feet long

and the second, 26- to 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 30- to 34-foot trailers and includes nine

axles. However, no wide demand for this vehicle is

36
Figure 3-l—Heavy 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
Figure 3-2—Vehicle Size Comparison

T

1

T

1

SOURCE: American Trucking Associations, Inc.

38
.

39
40

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 96-

inch 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 law’s

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 OTA’S

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 bridge’s

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
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
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, ’8

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
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
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 driver’s 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
Figure 3-6-Hitching Mechanisms for Twin-Trailer Trucks

A-train hitch

47
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 LCVS.

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 10- to 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
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 vehicles35 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 ‘l’’ransportation Research Board, oPo cit* ~

footnote 9, pp. 45-47.

37 Federal Highway Administration, op. Cito ~

footnote 32, p. II-1.

49
Table 3-l—Vehicle 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 TRACTOR- TRACTOR- SEMl- TRUCKS

SEMl- TWINTRACTOR- TRACTOR- SEMITRAILER TRAILER SEMl- TWIN- TRAILER 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 57.33D

28.5D40 0 0 57.33D

28.5D

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 AN N 5 3

N N AN 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 53EE

28.5 4 0 65 E 4 8

E E 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
Table 3-l—Vehicle 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

WEIGHT

(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

K K

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 2011

22.4 3411

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
Table 3-l—Vehicle Sizes and Weights: Maximum Limits, Jan. 1, 1991-Continued

%

52
Table 3-l—Vehicle 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

WEIGHT

(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 can’t exceed

405 feet + 5 feel

Eff 4-1 91 decreased to 34,000 Ibs

53
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 DOT40*

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.

~ office 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.43Though 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
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 study4g estimates the annual

Institute under NHTSA contract, 1991; and Nick

Patch, Mayflower Elite Fleet, personal

communication, Mar. 12, 1991.

45 Neil D. Lemer et al., Comsis CO 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

@ The Urban Institute, ‘Pavement and Bridge

Impacts of Longer Combination Vehicles, ” study

prepared for the Trucking Research Institute, The

55
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 manufacturer’s 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 rural53 and

urban bridge54 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 49-

52 AS in the 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
57
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 public

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

Nation’s 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 suggested57

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 28-

foot 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 State’s

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
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 LCVS.

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
Box 3-B--Calculating the Costs of Economic Development in Wyoming

A truck weight study conducted by the Wyoming State Highway Departmenti 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 Wyoming’s 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 staff

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
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 double- v. 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
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 Association’s

(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 public’s 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 the 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-operatorsIndependent

Drivers Association, Inc., and Ed Kynaston,

Professional Truck Drivers Institute of America,

personal communications, May 1991.

62
Appendix A

Supplementary Tables

Table A-l—impact 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