Moving Ahead: 1991 Surface Transportation Legislation

Moving Ahead: 1991 SurfaceTransportation Legislation

June 1991

OTA-SET-496NTIS order #PB91-212159

Recommended Citation:

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Moving Ahead: 1991 Surface Transporta-tion Legislation, OTA-SET-496 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, June1991).

For sale by the Superintendent of DocumentsU.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 overwhelmingand competing demands on the Federal, State, and local government dollars needed to fix theseproblems made reauthorization of Federal surface transportation legislation a major agenda item forthe 102d Congress. Anticipating heated debate on highway, transit, and related surface transportationissues, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works asked OTA in May 1990 to use theinformation and background accumulated during its infrastructure studies, Rebuilding theFoundations and Delivering the Goods, and undertake a focused analysis of surface transportationpolicies, 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 Federalsurface transportation assistance programs. Previously Senator Hatch had asked OTA to evaluatetechnologies for heavy trucks, and since motor carrier issues are an integral part of surfacetransportation legislation, the decision was made to undertake a single study addressing these relatedrequests.

The categorical grant programs and apportionment formulas that are part of most currentFederal aid to surface transportation are extremely complex and incorporate some of the most divisiveand contentious aspects of legislative decisionmaking. To ensure that a spectrum of policy options islaid out, Moving Ahead provides four illustrative, generic models, with program components that canbe mixed and matched. Safety, research and development agendas, and motor carrier issues, withspecial attention to heavy trucks with multiple trailers, are also discussed.

Workshop participants and a number of government, industry, and private citizen reviewersgave us an invaluable range of information. OTA is grateful for the time and energy committed sogenerously by each individual. Their participation does not necessarily represent endorsement of thecontents 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 ChairDirector, Transportation Planning

Metropolitan Washington Council of GovernmentsWashington, DC

Mr. John ArcherManaging DirectorGovernment AffairsAmerican Automobile AssociationWashington, DC

Ms. Rita BontzPresident, Independent Truckers and

Drivers AssociationBaltimore, MD

Mr. Robert ClarkeDirectorHeavy Vehicle Research DivisionNational Highway Traffic

Safety AdministrationWashington, DC

Mr. Richard CorpDirector of Traveller ServicesNew York State Thruway AuthorityAlbany, NY

Mr. Jerry DeClaireVice President, Engineering and DevelopmentRockwell International CorporationTroy, Ml

Mr. Jerry EhrlichPresidentWabash National CorporationLafayette, IN

Mr. Paul FancherEngineering Research ScientistUniversity of Michigan

Transportation Research InstituteAnn Arbor, Ml

Mr. Norm LindgrenDirector, Office of Motor CarriersUtah Department of TransportationSalt Lake City, UT

Mr. Stanley LordDirector, Operations DivisionGeorgia Department of TransportationAtlanta, GA

Mr. George McLaineTransportation ManagerCanada Safeway Ltd.Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Mr. Vernon McDougallSafety and Health DivisionInternational Brotherhood of Teamster:Washington, DC

Mr. John PearsonWestern Highway InstituteSan Bruno, CA

Mr. Tony PreussDirector, Technical SupportInsurance Institute of Highway SafetyArlington, VA

Dr. Paul RobertsPresidentTransmode ConsultantsWashington, DC

Ms. Margaret SullivanPACCAR Technical CenterMount Vernon, WA

Mr. Warren E. HoemannDirector of State Government RelationsYellow Freight System, Inc.Overland Park, KS

iv

Moving Ahead: 1991 Surface Transportation LegislationOTA Project Staff

John Andelin, Assistant Director, OTAScience, Information, and Natural Resources Division

Nancy Carson, Program ManagerScience, Education, and Transportation

Edith B. Page, Transportation Project Director

Jonathan Atkin, Analyst

Julia Connally, Analyst

Daniel Broun, Research Assistant

Administrative Staff

Christopher ClaryDivision Assistant

Marsha FennOffice Administrator

Gay JacksonAdministrative Secretary

Tamara CymanskiSecretary

Other Reviewers and Contributors

Thomas DonahueAmerican Trucking Associations

Forrest BakerTransportation Research and Marketing

Gerald DonaldsonAdvocates for Highway and Auto Safety

Samuel BaldwinOffice of Technology Assessment

Denise DoughertyOffice of Technology Assessment

Ray BarnhartTexas Research and Development Foundation

William DruhanAmerican Association of State Highway at

Transportation Officials

Gene BergoffenNational Private Truck Council

John R. BillingOntario Ministry of Transportation Earl Eisenhart

National Private Truck CouncilSusan BinderFederal Highway Administration Robert Ervin

University of Michigan TransportationResearch InstituteBecky Brady

National Conference of State LegislatorsDavid EwingAmerican Trucking AssociationsSara Campbell

Surface Transportation Policy ProjectJohn N. FischerCongressional Research ServiceJoseph Canny

U.S. Department of TransportationBaruch FischhoffCarnegie-Mellon UniversityJ. L. Carter, Jr.

Association of American RailroadsRuss FisteCommercial Vehicle Safety AllianceBill Chaddock

TMC, MCI Greyhound CompaniesFrancis FrancoisAmerican Association of State Highway a

Transportation OfficialsJoan ClaybrookCitizens for Reliable and Safe Highways

Anthony GarrettCitizens for Reliable and Safe Highways

Bryan ClymerUrban Mass Transportation Administration

Jack GilstrapAmerican Public Transit Association

Charilyn CowanNational Governors’ Association

Peter GriskevichMotor Vehicle Manufacturers Association

Mary CoyleNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Phyllis GussCitizens for Reliable and Safe Highways

Ralph CraftState of New Jersey

M.J. HanniganCalifornia Highway Patrol

Michael DeichCongressional Budget Office

Rob HarrisonUniversity of Texas at Austin

vi

Barbara HarshaNational Association of Governors’

Highway Safety Representatives

Nick PatchMayflower Van Lines

Susan PerryAmerican Bus AssociationJ.F. Hornbeck

Congressional Research ServiceCraig PhillipSouthern Pacific RailroadJim Johnston

Owner-Operators Independent DriversAssociation, Inc. John Reith

American Trucking AssociationsRichard R. JohnTransportation Systems Center T. Peter Ruane

American Road &TransportationBuilders AssociationEd Kynaston

Professional Truck Driver Institute of AmericaNeil SchusterInternational Bridge, Tunnel

&Turnpike AssociationLester LammHighway Users Federation

Robert SkinnerNational Research Council

Richard LandisFederal Highway Administration

Doug SmallsUnited Parcel Service

Thomas D. LarsonFederal Highway Administration

Linda S. StandauU.S. General Accounting Office

Stephen LockwoodFederal Highway Administration

Robert StanleyAmerican Public Transit Association

Tim LomaxTexas Transportation Institute

Howard SteinKittelson & Associates

Paul LovedayCitizens for Reliable and Safe Highways

Larry StrawhornAmerican Trucking Associations

George MarcouAmerican Planning Association

Barry SweedlerNational Transportation Safety Board

Kenneth MeadeU.S. General Accounting Office

Carl SwerdloffU.S. Department of Transportation

Hugh MieldsLinton, Mields, Reisler, and Cottone

Walter TappeinerNovophalt, America

John G. MillikenSecretary of Transportation,

Commonwealth of VirginiaStephen ThompsonCongressional Research ServiceRoger Mingo

R.D. Mingo & AssociatesBrian VogelAssociation of American RailroadsBrian O’Neill

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

vii

J.D. WarburtonWyoming Highway Department

William J. WattFederal Railroad Administration

Arnold WellmanUnited Parcel Service

Jacqueline WilliamsU.S. General Accounting Office

Leslie WollackNational League of Cities

Ron WoodU.S. General Accounting Office

Dennis WylieEssex Corporation

Charles V. ZegeerThe University of North Carolina

Highway Safety Research Center

. . .Vlll

C O N T E N T S

Introduction ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. Q.. ... ... ".. """"" """"" """" """" """"" """ """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""1

Chapter 1: Transportation System Needs for the 1990sand 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. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8Technology for the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9Investment and Institutional Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9Apportioning Federal Aid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12Federal Matching Ratios. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

Program Flexibility... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .............""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""18Performance Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18Regional Planning... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . .............."""."""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""18

Chapter 2: Where We Go From Here: Program Goals, Structure, and Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Generic Program Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21Planning, Safety, R&D, and Other Program Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Chapter 3: Motor Carrier Issues... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .............."""."""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""35Large, Heavy Trucks on the Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35LCVs Defined ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. ............"""""""""""""""`"""""""""""""""""""""36Regulatory Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36Handling and Safety Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

State Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49Human Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49Infrastructure Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55Economic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60

Appendix A: Supplementary Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

Boxes

BoxA.l-B.1 -c.2-A.2-B.2-c.2-D.2-E.3-A.3-B.

Trends Affecting Surface Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2Fiscal issues Differ Widely Depending on State Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Sample Maintenance Award and Congestion Relief Bonus Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19Model A Program Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........22Model B Program Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24Model C Program Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25Model D Program Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27Model E Novophalt: A Tough Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :;Greater Productivity Through Longer Buses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56Calculating the Costs of Economic Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60

ix

Figures

Figure1-1.1-2.1-3.1-4.3-1.3-2.3-3.3-4.3-5.3-6.

Types of Highway Improvement Financed by Federal Aid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5State Payments Into Highway Trust Fund, 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13Apportionment of Highway Trust Fund to States, 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14State Fiscal Capacity to Raise Revenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17Heavy Truck Configurations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37Vehicle Size Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38States Allowing Limited LCV Operations and Year First Allowed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39Triple-Trailer Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40Turnpike Doubles: States With Designated Routes and Weight Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41Hitching Mechanisms for Twin-Trailer Trucks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

Tables

Table

1-1. 1989 Congestion Levels in Major Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71-2. Proposed Federal Authorizations for Highway and Mass Transit, 1991-96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101-3. Current Federal Highway and Mass Transit Program Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111-4. Administration Proposed Surface Transportation Act Authorization for 1992-96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-5. Apportionment Factors for Federal Surface Transportation Aid, 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .122-1. Surface Transportation Research and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .303-1. Vehicle Sizes and Weight: Maximum Limits, Jan. 1, 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50

Moving Ahead: 1991 Surface Transportation Legislation

INTRODUCTION

Federal transportation assistance andregulatory policies affect the daily lives of everycitizen and the activities of every industry. Feder-al surface transportation programs also directlyaffect over 800,000 miles of roads, 270,000bridges, local transit authorities, Amtrak andState-run commuter railroads, and motor car-riers. However, current Federal surface trans-portation policies reflect political goals and deci-sions and institutional alignments establisheddecades ago, some as early as 1916. Theagenda receiving priority for the past 35 yearswas set in 1956, when the Federal Governmentaccepted the mission of creating high-quality, ef-ficient, coast-to-coast intercity and farm-to-market highways, to provide for defense, fosterState and local economic development, andopen access to remote rural areas. At that time,the Federal Government took on the mission offinancing construction of an interstate highwaysystem, in addition to aid already provided forother State road programs. Totali Federal cost tocomplete the Interstate system (probably in1995) is now estimated at $128 billion.’

in contrast to its longstanding support forhighways, the Federal Government did not par-ticipate in mass transit funding until the 1960sand 1970s, when it began supporting the conver-sion of failing private transit companies to publicownership. Later, Federal subsidies were ex-tended to rail and bus capital investment and tosupplement farebox revenues with the goals ofsupporting urban renewal and economic growth.However, Federal aid for mass transit, which hastotaled $62 billion, peaked in 1981 at $4.7 billionand has declined steadily in real dollars sincethen. in 1988, State aid to transit agencies sur-passed Federal assistance levels, which had fali-len to $3.3 billion.2

1 Senator Daniel Moynihan, “Statement on theSurface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, ”Congressional Record, vol. 137, No. 51, Apr. 9,1991, p. 3.2 Uos, Congress, Office of Technology Assess-

ment, Rebuilding the Foundations: A Special Report

Unlike these Federal programs, the UnitedStates has changed profoundly during the last 35years: the national economy, demographics,regional and metropolitan development patterns,technologies, family lifestyles, political attitudes,and governmental institutions are all significantlydifferent. (See box A for a summary of keychanges.) Characteristics such as metropolitansprawl and traffic congestion, growth of thetrucking industry, the migration of manufacturingjobs to the suburbs, and urban air pollution arelargely outgrowths of Federal policies that en-couraged highway construction. At the otherend of the problem spectrum are dilapidatedhighways in large, sparsely populated Stateswhere inadequate funds have prevented recon-struction of roads essential to providing goodsand services.

Regardless of the origin of these develop-ments, the environment of the 1990s presentsnew and different issues and problems. Trans-portation programs for a primarily urban popula-tion that competes in a high-tech global econo-my cannot operate effectively under rules set insimpler times. Moreover, rural populations haveremained underserved under those same rules.Recognizing that policies and programs estab-lished so long ago need changing now, theSenate Committee on Environment and PublicWorks asked OTA for help in assessing howhighway and transit legislation being consideredin 1991 could best be reshaped to chart a coursefor the future. This document represents OTA’sresponse to that request. The major issues sur-rounding the reauthorization of highway andtransit legislation are laid out and four illustrativetypes of surface transportation programs are pre-sented in chapters 1 and 2. Chapter 3 is devotedto the discussion of motor carrier programs, withspecial attention to issues related to longer com-bination trucks.

on State and Local Public Works Financing andManagement, 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 thegroup aged 45 to 64 showing the most growth. The South and West accounted for 90 percent of populationgrowth in the 1980s, and these regions will continue to grow the fastest. One-quarter of the population nowlives in the seven largest metropolitan areas. Almost all new population growth is expected to occur in thesuburbs 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 invehicles per household will cause travel to outpace both population and economic growth, increasing trafficcongestion, 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 moreefficient intercity travel. Already deep, the chasm between service needs and fiscal capabilities of both ruraland urban jurisdictions will grow. States with large land areas and small populations, responsible for reha-bilitating and maintaining a large share of the Nation’s Interstate, primary, and secondary highways, willfind it increasingly difficult to squeeze adequate resources from State budgets to meet the system needs. Airquality problems will intensify in most metropolitan areas.

Economic Trends

The shift from goods production to service delivery will continue, with production employment droppingby up to 16 percent by 2000 and service employment increasing 13 percent. The Nation’s labor forcegrowth rate will slow, primarily because the supply of younger workers is shrinking. More flexiblemanufacturing technologies will encourage decentralized manufacturing and just-in-time delivery. Demandfor transportation of industrial raw materials will drop, but overall transportation demand will expand, espe-cially for light, high-value products. This will put a premium on speed and reliability--values likely to favorair and truck transport, although rail can be competitive in selected corridors. Changes in communicationsand transportation will accelerate economic globalization, encouraging growth around selected deep waterports and major airports. Maintenance and reconstruction must be assured for rural highways, the majortransportation connections for remote areas.


Highway travel is expected to continue to increase over the next 30 years, putting additional burdens onexisting roadways. Economic globalization means west coast ports and interrnodd connections will becomerelatively more important, as Pacific trade grows. The need for expanded capacity and improved intermodalconnections will intensify around international and domestic airports.

Environmental Trends

The economic and political importance of environmental preservation and restoration issues will ac-celerate. While pollution from heavy industry may decrease as a result of economic restructuring, the chal-lenge 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 Trans-DC: March 1990), chs. 1-5, and OTA research.

2


As the link between transportation and the environment is better understood, the environmental impactsof all proposed public works projects will be scrutinized more carefully by public and private groups. Airquality 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 im-ports, and of that over 70 percent is consumed by highway transport. Substantial increases in world energyand petroleum demand and uncertainty of supply are expected to keep energy prices fluctuating. Fuel ef-ficiency of new cars doubled between 1973 and 1988, and OTA sees the potential for substantial further im-provement.


Despite uncertain petroleum costs, major modal shifts are unlikely,transit and other nonhighway transport will increase. Higher gas prices

although the cost-effectiveness ofmay 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 policieschange dramatically, highway travel will continue to increase.

———.—

3

Chapter 1

Transportation System Needs for the 1990s and Beyond

Historically, Federal funding has focused onnew construction to increase urban and ruralhighway and transit access and capacity and, toa lesser extent, on system preservation. Analyz-ing Federal spending by project types, new con-struction and capital replacement have absorbedabout 75 percent of Federal spending during thelast decade.’ Project improvements more close-ly associated with maintenance and systempreservation (restoration, rehabilitation, andresurfacing) have rarely claimed 25 percent ofFederal spending and are now around 20 percent(see figure 1-1).2 State spending, which ac-counts for about 50 percent of all highway ex-penditures, also favors new construction and re-construction. 3

gram such as Interstate and primary, the FederalHighway Administration categorizes obligations byproject improvement types: new construction,relocation, reconstruction, widening, resurfacing,restoration and rehabilitation, bridge replacement,and bridge rehabilitation. To simplify, these aregrouped into four broad categories: new construc-tion, capital replacement, maintenance, and other.New construction includes all first-time construc-tion, construction of a new route to replace an oldone, major and minor widening, and new bridges.Capital replacement covers full or near full replace-ment of a bridge or highway system and includesbridge replacement, major bridge rehabilitation, andhighway reconstruction. Maintenance coversprojects for rehabilitation or repairing existing struc-tures to prolong life and to avoid total capital re-placement. This group includes project improve-ment categories for restoration and rehabilitation,resurfacing, and minor bridge rehabilitation. Theother category captures all nonconstruction spend-.

Bridge Investments: What Role for Federal GrantPrograms? (Washington, DC: Congressional Re-search Service, May 31, 1990), pp. 6-7.3 U .S. Department of Transportation, FederalHighway Administration, Highway Statistics 1989(Washington, DC: 1990), p. 72.

During the 1960s and 1970s, construction ofnew roadways and more lanes was the typicalprescription for resolving congestion problems.Most major urban areas built Interstate beltwaysto carry through traffic around congesteddowntowns. But building roads in metropolitanregions encouraged vastly increased vehicleownership and travel demand, particularly in thelow-density suburbs, and beltways now carrypredominantly local traffic, despite their designa-tion as part of the Federal Interstate system. By1991, land scarcity, air quality mandates, inter-governmental rivalries, and competition for public

Figure l-l—Types of Highway ImprovementFinanced by Federal Aida

100%

75%

50%

25%

o%19801981198219831984 19851988198719881989

5

capital have made relying on new construction inurban areas an expensive and obsolete policy.Rural States must be assured of the ability tomaintain the roads they have--an assurance theynow lack. New approaches and different pro-grams are clearly a must.

Based on findings in Delivering the Goods,4

OTA’s recently released comprehensive study ofpublic works infrastructure, the major systemproblems facing surface transportation in the1990s and beyond are:

. rehabilitation and maintenance of existingfacilities,

. 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 institu-tion/ policies need rethinking, including Federalinvestment levels and apportionment formulas,program priorities and design, needs and ex-pectations of State and local governments andthe private sector, and clarification of Federalresponsibilities.

SYSTEM REHABILITATION ANDMAINTENANCE

Across the country, highways, bridges, andtransit facilities require major repair or recon-struction to maintain acceptable service levels.Because the rewards for regular maintenance areminimal compared to those for other more visibletypes of spending, investment in rehabilitationand maintenance has lagged seriously behindthe need for decades. Currently, about one-thirdof the Nation’s non-interstate arterials aredeteriorated or deteriorating. Almost one-half ofall bridges are structurally deficient or functional-ly obsolete. The maintenance backlog of largecity transit systems includes rehabilitation of2,800 miles of track, 11 million square feet ofbridge structures, and 214 bus maintenance andstorage facilities.5

4 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Delivering the Goods: Public Works Tech-nologies, Management, and Financing, OTA-SET-477 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice, April 1991).

To a large extent, today’s need for massivereconstruction and capital replacement was pre-dictable. The 1980s marked the end of the de-sign life of millions of miles of roadways built inthe 1950s and 1960s and of bridges and masstransit facilities constructed in the early part ofthe century. Moreover, the expected functionallife of many highways and bridges has beenshortened by heavier than anticipated use (in-cluding much greater use of heavy trucks) andthe neglect of regular maintenance. Localgovernments have often diverted fundingoriginally slated for pothole repair, bridge paint-ing and resurfacing, and bus maintenance tomatch Federal and State construction grants orto address other priorities. Small, rural com-munities and States with low per-capita incomesare under particular revenue stress. G In Alaska,for example, communities depend on the Al-CanHighway for connections between SoutheastAlaska and the panhandle and between the Stateand the lower 48. They are threatened with im-position of a 35-mile-per-hour speed limit andshutdown of sections of the road by the Cana-dian Government, because portions of theState’s road are in such poor condition.Estimates for repair costs exceed the State’s totalannual highway budget. Addressing system re-habilitation and maintenance problems is thetop priority for new highway legislation.

Major issues include: What Federal policyand funding changes can ensure systematic in-vestment in rehabilitation and maintenance by alllevels of government? What adjusters, if any,should be included in Federal programs to helpStates with few economic resources and largemaintenance and rehabilitation costs?

METROPOLITAN MOBILITY ANDCONGESTION RELIEF

Almost 80 percent of the U.S. population livesin one of the Nation’s 282 metropolitan areas,and the metropolitan growth trend is expected tocontinue. Almost all new jobs and population in-creases are forecast to occur in the suburbs ofmetropolitan areas, particularly in the largerones .7 Travel on major urban highways in-creased 30 percent between 1983 and 1987.8

s u s Department of Transportation, National. .Transpotiation Strategic Planning Study (Washing-ton, 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 everyyear in lost productivity and adds significantly toair pollution. The total price to the public fordelays caused by highway congestion is at least$30 billion annually, and while some places arebeginning to attack traffic congestion, by andlarge it is a worsening and nationwide problem(see table l-l). A comprehensive Federal policyto deal with metropolitan regional congestionand urban mobility problems is long overdue.Initial components for developing such a policymust include analytic tools, such as reliable dataand information collection, and quantifiable per-formance measures that incorporate incentivesor financial rewards for improvements.

Actions that can be taken immediately includea combination of some additional capacity, better

maintenance, and making existing roadways andbridges more productive and efficient throughavailable intelligent vehicle/highway systems(IVHS) technologies. However, a program thatemphasizes more highway spending alone is notadequate for the 1990s. Improved transportationalternatives--such as commuter rail, mass transitand other high-occupancy options, strongerregional transportation planning linked to landuse and growth management goals, and betterconnections between transit and highways andother modes--must become parts of surfacetransportation programs.

Growing communities have economicresources they can tap to fund congestion reliefmeasures, and they can direct new developmentinto relatively efficient patterns. This is not thecase for older, less affluent central cities and sub-urbs, where congestion problems are ex-acerbated by aging roadways and bridges andoutmoded 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 govern-ments need to recognize the role their majorcities play in the overall economic health of theState and provide assistance, as appropriate.

Major issues include: How to restructureFederal transportation priorities and programs tohelp States and localities address congestion is-sues, including its staggering costs. What newtechnologies (such as planning aids) in additionto IVHS, can assist in managing and reducingcongestion?

ACCESS TO RURAL AREAS

Transportation options for rural America areshrinking, while the costs for maintaining ruralhighways are rising.9 To control costs and maketheir operations more productive, rail, air, and in-tercity bus transportation have abandoned ser-vice to many small towns, especially those inrural, Iow-density States, leaving cars and trucksas the only transportation alternative. Simulta-neously, Federal and State programs, seeking tomaximize economic benefit, generally target theirsubsidies for Interstate system and major high-way construction, and capital replacement;county and local government shoulder most re-sponsibility for maintenance. These costs areparticularly heavy burdens for sparsely popu-lated States that have extensive road systems,such as Montana and Wyoming, and for poorStates like Alabama and Mississippi whereper-capita income levels are far below the na-tional average. Their ability to pay is not com-mensurate with the investment needed tomaintain the roadway system on which theyare dependent.

As a result of long-term Federal and privatesector investment and regulatory policies, U.S.transportation infrastructure and institutions pro-vide for multiple separate modes. To the detri-ment of shippers and travelers, the country doesnot have an efficient intermodal system, in fact oras a matter of policy. Trucks compete with rail-roads for freight market share and with automo-biles on the highways. Highway and transit offi-cials compete against each other for public sup-port and limited public funding. U.S. Departmentof Transportation (DOT) modal administratorsand congressional committees compete, too.While competition is an essential ingredient forcontinuing vigor in a complex transportation sys-tem, the trick is to achieve a balance between ahealthy level and narrow, parochial feuding thatstrangles essential growth in productivity.

The resiliency and long-term growth of theeconomy depends on an efficient andbalanced transportation system; intermodalcooperation and the linkages between themodes will be the keys. Without substantialimprovement, inefficient freight transfers willcost industry dearly, and time-consumingcommutes will reduce worker productivity. Apolitical and institutional framework must bedeveloped to address these issues. At pres-ent, for example, the groundside transporta-tion needs of air and seaports--major trafficgenerators--are frequently left out of localtransportation decision making.

Major issues include: What Federal institu-tional and funding changes can most effectivelyencourage an efficient intermodal transportationsystem? What are the best ways to maintain thebenefits of competition and still improve inter-modal performance?

Major issues include: Determining the Feder-al responsibility for assisting rural and poorStates in maintaining their road networks.

COMPATIBILITY WITH ENVIRONMENTALGOALS

9 The number of heavy vehicles operated by farm-ers and farm supply and marketing firms travelingon rural roads has increased substantially, whilerevenues to maintain and reconstruct the existingsystem are declining in real terms. For further in-formation, see C. Phillip Baumel et al., lhe Eco-nomics of Reducing the County Road System: llweeCase Studies in Iowa, DOT/OST/P 34/86/035(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transporta-tion, January 1986).

Transportation and the environment (air,water, and land) are closely linked in the physicalworld and in legislation since the passage ofrecent environmental laws. Unless transportationplans are compatible with environmental goalsand mandates, Federal transportation fundingwill be cut off or projects will be ensnared in leng-thy, even irreconcilable intergovernmental orcitizen disputes. As a result, environmental inter-

8

ests are emerging as full-fledged players in trans- FHWA, since SHRP is slated to go out of exis-portation decisionmaking. tence within a few years. Automatic vehicle iden-

The specific impacts of the 1990 Clean Air Actare just beginning to be understood by Federal,State, and metropolitan transportationpolicy makers and administrators. To achievemandated decreases in car and truck generatedpollutants, major changes are unavoidable inbusiness operations, commuting and other travelpatterns, land development, as well as, how deci-sions are made about transportation planningand investment. Linkages between highwaysand other environmental issues, such as noisepollution and wetlands functions and values,must also be better understood and processesimproved for eliminating conflicts. New surfacetransportation legislation needs to establishprocesses that incorporate environmental is-sues as well as engineering and economic fac-tors. Environmental considerations must beincluded in the early stages of policy and pro-ject planning.

Major issues include: How best to clarifylines of communication and authority betweentransportation and environmental officials anddecisionmaking processes at the Federal, State,and local levels.

TECHNOLOGY FOR THE FUTURE

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)supports the vast majority of research and devel-opment (R&D) on highway technologies and hastraditionally focused on research to underpinconstruction standards and regulations for oper-ating safety. The Strategic Highway ResearchProgram (SHRP) was established outside FHWAto promote a more far-reaching research agenda.

While FHWA’S 1991 and 1992 budget re-quests reflect some increases in the resourcesdevoted to R&D, the time is right to expandFHWA’S research agenda and related surfacetransportation research programs still further.Priorities include technologies addressing high-way capacity and congestion relief, structuralpreservation and rehabilitation, and integration ofhighways with other modes. For example, pave-ment durability research, such as that being con-ducted by SHRP, needs a permanent home in

tification technologies that speed toll collectionand other advanced traffic management tech-nologies in IVHS offer significant potential forcongestion relief and for cutting down on high-way delays. High-speed rail and magnetic levita-tion systems need further work to determine theirplace in the intermodal intercity systems of thefuture. Many of these technologies are ready toimplement, but additional evaluation ordemonstration under FHWA sponsorship wouldhelp bring them into widespread use.

Bolstering the surface transportation researchagenda raises questions about the effectivenessof the current research structure and funding ar-rangements. The informal cooperative arrange-ments now used between the Urban Mass Trans-portation Administration, the National HighwayTraffic Safety Administration, and FHWA are bet-ter than nothing, but a strategic DOT plan for sur-face transportation is long overdue. Only whensuch a plan has been developed, with milestonesand technology transfer mechanisms included,can a steady funding stream be contemplated.In addition, OTA’s research points to the dif-ficulties facing State and local officials in usingnew, advanced technologies. FHWA hasmounted a substantial effort to re-establish tech-nology transfer programs that were cut back adecade ago, but additional techniques for im-proving Federal technology transfer and ways toovercome institutional obstacles must beidentified and implemented.

Major issues include: What institutionalchanges are needed to ensure rapid develop-ment and implementation of existing new tech-nologies? What R&D programs are needed toevaluate next generation surface transportationtechnologies?

INVESTMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES

Acknowledging an increased backlog oftransportation projects, Congress raised the1991 obligation ceiling for highways and masstransit to $17.8 billion, 17 percent over the 1990level of $15.2 billion. However, budget con-straints make it critically important that spendingis strategically targeted and that its long-term im-plications 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 1996Highways . . . . . . . . $14.0 $15.8 $16.1 $16.6 $18.1 $20.1Transit . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3aEstimated.

1991 Surface Transportation Assistance Act (Washington, DC: 1991).

Federal-Aid Levels

Compared to investment needs identified bygovernment and industry groups, which rangefrom $90 and $150 billion annually, the 1991 Fed-eral appropriations and those projected by theAdministration for 1992 to 1996 fall far short oflevels necessary to recoup a decade of disinvest-ment and to leverage large increases in State, lo-cal and private investment. The proposed Ad-ministration 5-year highway spending plan barelykeeps up with inflation through 1994 (see table 1-2); significant increases are not scheduled until1995 and 1996. Transit funding would bemaintained for the authorization period at $3.3billion annually, which represents only a 1 per-cent increase over the past 5 years and adecrease in purchasing power as the result of in-flation.10

While local and State officials and industry ad-vocates are pleased by the increase in 1991spending, they would like to see more spendingdrawing down the large trust fund balancesmaintained for highways and mass transit ($1 1billion and $8.5 billion, respectively, in 1991). Un-der the Administration proposal, these areestimated to reach $16 and $9 billion, respective-ly, by 1996. ” The balances would fall between1995 and 1996 because current legislationreduces motor fuels taxes in October 1995 backto November 31, 1990 levels--a move that would

10 Kemeth M, MWd, clirector, Transportation is-sues, Resources, Community and Economic Devel-opment Division, U.S. General Accounting Office,testimony at hearings before the House Sub-committee on Investigations and Oversight, Com-mittee on Public Works and Transportation, Mar. 5,1991, p. 2.11 James L. Blurn, assistant director, Budget Analy-sis Division, Congressional Budget Office,testimony at hearings before the Senate Committeeon Environment and Public Works, Mar. 5, 1991,

eliminate the recent 2-cent per-gallon increase inthe highway trust fund and the 0.5-cent per-gallon increase in the transit account and sig-nificantly reduce earmarked revenues.

Unlike mandatory entitlement trust funds,such as social security, highway and transit fundbalances cannot be spent without being bud-geted and appropriated. Thus, the annual sur-face transportation agenda must compete withother Federal priorities that are funded under thedomestic spending ceilings imposed in the 1990deficit reduction package.

Congress could consider whether the long-term economic and environmental benefits ofa structurally sound and efficient transporta-tion system are so compelling that they war-rant recalculating Federal budget priorities (orstrategies). A growing body of economic re-search shows a strongly positive relationshipbetween public investment in infrastructureand economic growth.12 If the Federal gas taxwere raised gradually and continuously, theflow of earmarked transportation funds wouldincrease, adding to the amounts available forimprovements, and reducing the energy con-sumed during traffic delays and travel overbumpy roads.

Major issues include: Isa substantially largerFederal investment warranted to address trans-portation system needs and avoid detrimentaleconomic consequences? And if yes, how canit be financed?

10

1991 authorizationsProgram (in billions of dollars) Percent

Highways:Interstate construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3.2

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 20Primary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 16

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 4Urban . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 6Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 19

Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.0 100

Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4

Discretionary programs (new rail lines, modernization, and. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 36

2.1 64Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 100

Total $17.7

Table 1-4--Administration Proposed Surface Transportation Act Authorization for 1992-96

AuthorizationsProgram (in billions of dollars) Percent

Highway:Interstate completion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 7 . 2 8%National highway system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.5 50Urban/rural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.2 26Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.7 12Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 4

Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86.8 100

Highway and motor carrier safety:Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3

Mass transit:Discretionary programs (primarily new starts). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.0 12Formula (capital projects, planning, and operations) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.3 88

Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.3 100

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $105.4SOURCE: Federal Highway Administration, Mowing America Into the 21st Century (Washington, DC: 1991), p. 16.

Program Priorities

Along with Federal-aid levels, the biggest is-sue facing Congress is how the money is to bespent. (See table 1-3 for current authorizationsand table 1-4 for 1992 to 1996 proposed programauthorizations.) Two issues are at the heart ofthe priorities debate: 1) the importance of systempreservation and efficiency relative to construc-tion and capacity expansion, and 2) the wisdomof concentrating Federal spending on a nationalhighway network as opposed to supporting abalanced intermodal transportation system that

serves both rural and urban areas efficiently.

Construction or System Preservation?

Despite a tradition of favoring construction asanswers to transportation needs, the buildingbias is moderating. DOT, most State and localofficials, and many highway and transit groupsadvocate targeting funding at system preserva-tion and improvement to protect existing invest-ment, improve safety, and reduce long-termmaintenance and environmental costs.

11

Some interest groups recommend denyingFederal funding of new highway construction, un-less it is part of a State or rural government-approved program, and focusing Federal spend-ing on system rehabilitation and performance en-hancement. Others contend that adequate fund-ing for construction is essential to provide accessto underserved areas.

Highways or Intermodal Systems?

Federal policy and funding has generouslysupported construction of an excellent Interstatehighway system, but this focus has helped createsprawling metropolitan areas, and is not wellsuited to the complexities of the 1990s, muchless the 21st century. The Nation needs a robustand balanced intercity transportation system tocompete effectively in the international economy.Investment in highways is, of course, an impor-tant part of such a balanced system. However, ina time of very tight budgets, too much emphasison highways may divert resources from metro-politan transportation problems that haveenormous consequences, and affect intercitypassenger and freight travel and much of the Na-tion’s population, its economy, and the environ-ment. Furthermore, overemphasis on highwayconstruction and capital improvements burdensrural areas with demands for rehabilitation andmaintenance that they have difficulty meeting.

Federal policy could promote an inter-modal model that integrates Interstate, otherarterials, rural highways, waterways, freightand passenger rail lines and air corridors intoa national transportation system. This con-cept includes metropolitan networks--madeup of modern urban highways; high-occupancy, high-volume corridors; transit,commuter, and intercity rail routes; and inter-modal transfer centers--all integrated andlinked to air and seaports.

Major issues include: To promote the long-term national interest, should Federal spendingpriorities focus on expanding the national high-way system or on developing a balanced trans-portation system that includes highways as onecomponent of a surface transport network?

APPORTIONING FEDERAL AID

Because all States contribute to the FederalHighway Trust Fund, maintain backlogs of trans-

portation projects, and count heavily on Federalaid, Federal apportionment formulas are impor-tant and controversial policies. The result ofnumerous political compromises made overmany years, Federal-aid apportionment formulasare complex and hard to evaluate in respect tocurrent national goals. Key formula factors areoutmoded and hard to quantify accurately. (Seetable 1-5 for a summary of current apportionmentfactors.) Urban States protest that allocation for-mulas are weighted unfairly in favor of ruralStates, ignoring the heavy use of urban roads,and large rural States claim their Federal share isminimal compared to their needs and their keyrole in national highway networks. Rapidly grow-ing States and metropolitan areas object to high-way and transit apportionments based on decen-nial census counts, because they receive nocredit for their above-average growth except at10-year intervals. All States want to maximizetheir share of the Federal outlays and, at least,get back close to what they pay in through fueltaxes. (See figure 1-2 for a map showing Statecontributions to the Highway Trust Fund and fig-ure 1-3 for current State Federal-aid apportion-ments.)

Table 1-5-Apportionment Factors for FederalSurface Transportation Aid, 1991

Factors determining eachProgram State’s aportionment

Highways:Interstate construction . .

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

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

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

Urban . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mass transit:Discretionary. . . . . . . . . .Formula . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

State’s share of the cost tocomplete the plannedInterstate system

Number of Interstate lane-milesNumber of vehicle-miles traveledState land areaState rural populationState rural delivery routes and city

mail route mileageState land areaState rural populationState rural delivery route mileageState urban area populationState’s share of the cost to replace

or rehabilitate deficient bridges

Urbanized area populationPopulation density within

urbanized areasTransit system service and

ridershipSOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportion, Federal Highway

Administration, Highway Statistics 79S9(Washington, DC:1990); and Congressional Research Service, Under-standing U.S. Transportation Program Finances (Wash-ington, DC: 1990).

12

[

IL

0I

I

13

I

I II

00

f

4

J

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 highgrowth areas, demand for transportation facilities and services exceeds immediate resources. Population in-creases have pushed demand for more capacity and investment to the South, Southwest, and west coast andto 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 capacityof State gas taxes in rich and poor States.) In addition to traditional grant aid, these places could benefitfrom 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 repaymentbased 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 re-habilitating transportation infrastructure are climbing, outpacing growth in State and local tax bases. Theproblem is particularly acute for low-density States like Alaska, Montana, and North Dakota where plannedhighways are left incomplete, and major roads remain unrepaired because of inadequate resources. In NewYork City and Philadelphia, which are extreme examples, massive investment is needed just to maintainminimal 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 ef-fort are difficult to develop,l these are critically important factors to consider if maintenance of struc-turally sound transportation infrastructure is to be achieved nationally. WhiIe primary- and secondary-aid formulas include State land area and system size as factors, these are, at best, indirect measures of needand do not calculate fiscal capacity, ability to pay, or local effort. In 1990, six western States with a totalpopulation of 5,6 million (or 2 percent of the Nation) and incomes below the national average wereresponsible for maintaining almost 10 percent of the Interstate system. Similarly, the urban area-aid for-mula, 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 Commissionon Intergovernmental Relations has developed comprehensive measures of fiscal capacity and effort, themost recent available data is for 1988. See U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Delivering theGoods: 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 ac-curately relate to system needs and fiscal capac-ity, apportionment formulas need reform. Most inneed of change are the formulas for primary andsecondary roads, which are outdated and gener-ally do not reflect accurately the most heavilyused roads. Bonuses have been proposed forlow-density States to compensate them for highper-capita road costs, but Congress may alsowant to consider modifying apportionment for-mulas or matching ratios (see next section) to as-sist States with low fiscal capacity. ’3 (See box1-B for a discussion of fiscal issues.) The fiveStates with the lowest fiscal capacity and notreceiving existing or proposed bonuses wouldbe: Mississippi, West Virginia, Arkansas, Ala-bama, and South Carolina.

Major issues include: How to allocateFederal-aid amounts and balance equity, systemneed, and fiscal capacity, and also promote theFederal interest.

FEDERAL MATCHING RATIOS

Federally set matching ratios are importantdeterminants of how much money each Stategets. They are also pivotal policy issues, sincehigh Federal matches profoundly affect State andlocal decisionmaking. For example, while a 90-percent Federal match for Interstate constructionproved an effective strategy for building a nation-al road system, the policy skewed State and localpriorities toward construction and undercut in-vestment in system preservation, maintenance,and transportation alternatives. Similarly, be-cause Interstate receive a 90-percent Federalmatch, Interstate projects are often given priorityover other needed State and local constructionprojects.

Matching ratios are used to reflect nationalpriorities, and the Administration’s interest inlimiting 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. His-torically, a State’s fiscal capabilities have not beenconsidered in apportioning Federal program fimds,although States with large Federal land holdingshave received special consideration. A State’s ca-pacity to raise revenue remains a salient issue, espe-cially if Federal matching shares are reduced. Onepossible way to assist the five or so States with thelowest fiscal capacities would be to include provi-

cities is seen in proposed new matching ratios,which substantially reduce the Federal match fornew transit starts from 75 to 50 percent. Thephilosophical basis for this is that new projectsmust be well supported locally to be viable and acost-effective Federal investment.

The 90-percent Federal share for Interstatewas appropriate in the 1970s and 1980s, giventhe strong Federal interest in completing Inter-state construction, but such a high Federalmatch for new programs is inconsistent withthe notion that States can and should accept alarger financial role. However, if Congresswants to reduce Federal program matchessubstantially (selectively or for all programs)to leverage more State and local spending, theimpact on individual States needs to be as-sessed. An increase from 10 to 15 percent inState matches may seem modest, but it can haveenormous impacts on State budgets. Such araise for the existing Interstate 4-R program,which provides funds for highway reconstructionand rehabilitation, would require almost $200 mil-lion in additional State investment. (See appen-dix A, table A-1 for the impact of a change from20 to 25 percent in the State match for bridges.)

In States where the economy is particularlyweak, an increased State matching requirementcould severely limit State participation in Federalprograms. The local burden of higher matchescould be reduced if Federal regulations permittedmore flexibility in what qualifies as the Stateshare such as toll revenues, impact fees, andother developer contributions. On the otherhand, matching ratios can be manipulated to pro-mote equity. Existing law permits a reducedState match for States where the Federal Govern-ment has large land holdings. (See appendix A,table A-2 for those States receiving a matchreduction now and those that are candidates forlow-density bonuses.) Similarly, reduced match-ing ratios could be applied to States with low fis-cal capacity (see figure 1-4).

Major issues include: How to use Federalsubsidies effectively to promote national objec-tives and leverage more State and local invest-ment without bringing unnecessary hardship.

sions for them in Federal legislation for a reducedmatching share.

16

PROGRAM FLEXIBILITY

Under the current categorical structure, Fed-eral aid is narrowly focused and comes with amyriad of strings and red tape. For reasons of ef-ficiency and because State and local govern-ments are footing a larger share of the bills andhave become better informed decisionmakers,they are demanding more autonomy and admin-istrative flexibility. This is especially true formetropolitan and rural programs where condi-tions and problems may be unique and programsneed to be customized. For instance, the abilityto transfer or combine program funds wouldgreatly enhance local administrations’ capacity todeal with issues such as port access or linkagesbetween mass transit facilities and highways.Greater program flexibility and increased localand State autonomy has wide support, both in-side and outside the Federal Government, al-though definitions of acceptable types offlexibility are likely to differ among interestgroups.

Major issues include: Which programs mostreflect Federal interests? What are appropriatereasons for Federal collection and redistributionof fuel taxes in flexible grants? Under a flexibleprogram structure, how can States be held ac-countable for making good use of Federal dol-lars?

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

The Federal Government currently lacks un-derstandable and reliable system performancemeasures, a situation that contributes to the gen-eral lack of direction evident in current Federalpolicy. For instance, although congestion is atop national issue, no standard approach is used

14 Of particular impor-for measuring congestion.tance is the development of databases forrecording and measuring congestion, intermodalactivity, highway and bridge maintenance, andinterrelationships of transportation with the en-vironment and land use. Data of this sort are im-portant for understanding transportation prob-lems and their linkages, setting reasonable stan-dards, measuring progress, and refining Federalprograms and apportionment formulas. Further-more, such measures are essential for planningtransportation strategies for air quality com-pliance.

1A u.s. General Accounting office, Traff ic

DOT is the most suitable entity to developperformance measures. In establishing an im-proved assessment system, Congress should besure that the right questions are asked, that DOThas a mechanism to collect and analyze the ap-propriate information, and that the department isheld accountable for results.

Performance Incentives

The Federal Government offers few rewardsfor superior performance of transportation sys-tems. Federal dollars are divided up according toformula, project costs and through discretionaryprograms--all of which have little to do with per-formance. If reliable performance standards aredeveloped, financial incentives for exemplaryachievement can be a positive new tool. Sincesystem maintenance and congestion are suchmajor problems, they are good candidates for in-centive programs. (See box 1 -C for samplemaintenance and congestion incentive programsdeveloped by OTA.)

REGIONAL PLANNING

Transportation problems are created andsolutions stymied by the absence of strongregional and State planning to guide land useand transportation decisions. Because of thenumber of governmental units that operate (andoverlap) in most metropolitan areas, decision-making is fragmented and narrowly focused,making it practically impossible to form a con-sensus on development goals and, thus, to builda framework for resolving regional transportationissues. Furthermore, State policies frequentlythwart meaningful regional planning by limitinglocal authority, especially for revenue raising, andby failing to maintain a viable State planning pro-cess.

Major issues include: How can the FederalGovernment best promote effective State /anduse and transportation planning and budgeting?

Congestion--Trends, Measures and Effects (Wash-ington, 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 allStates could compete. The National Maintenance Award Program seeks to improve transportation efficiencyin States of all sizes and types, and the Congestion Relief Bonus Program is aimed at improving metropolitantransporbtion system productivity. Rural States are perhaps less likely to be interested in the congestionrelief 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 raisingthe largest percentage of highway lane- and bridge-miles to a higher maintenance standard compared to abase 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 PeerReview Board determines have made the biggest improvement in the condition of highways and bridges overa previous year’s performance. The board, which could be set up by the Secretary of Transportation in con-junction with professional State and industry officials, would establish the evaluation measures or use thecurrent Present Serviceability Rating System.

How it works: Annually or biennially State DOTS may submit applications to compete for theMaintenance award. The Peer Review Board would select winners in two to three divisions; the divisionscould be based on size of the system, fiscal capacity, or percent of the system that is rural or urban. Theaward winners would have their techniques and strategies showcased so that other States could benefit. Statesmay 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 conges-tion and improve travel time and air quality (or make statutory or programmatic progress toward thesegoals). Involvement of highway, transit, and Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) officials in theprogram development is key.

I

Funding: One-half percent would be set aside, beginning in 1993 and increasing to as much as 1 percentby 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 bonusaward competition an MPO must have a Federal, State, and locally approved congestion reduction and man-agement plan including a supporting data collection and analysis program that follows Federal guidelines--tobe 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 pos-sibilities 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 otherappropriate 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; andprivate sector commitment to participate in congestion relief evidenced by specific agreements fortransit 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. Thevalue of each bonus point would be determined by the number of points earned in each size category dividedby available funds. Once having earned a bonus point, an MPO continues to receive the cash bonus eachyear throughout the authorization period unless its performance deteriorates. The MPO’s objective is to ac-cumulate bonus points over the years as a result of continuous improvement. Therefore, it would be impor-tant to increase program finding each year because as more points are awarded each is worth less, unless thebase is increased. MPOs could spend the bonus funds on enhancing any congestion relief or mobile sourcereduction 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 1will not be easy, and will require vision, difficultpolitical compromises, restructuring ofestablished program funding and institutionalrelationships, and, in all likelihood, somechanges in lifestyles. However, unless we dealwith the problems now, Americans will bear thecosts of inefficient and unproductivetransportation--through traffic delays, unhealthyair quality, inadequate access to transportationservices especially in rural areas, higher prices,and a lower standard of living. Reauthorizationof surface transportation legislation offersCongress the chance to shape a new programaimed at maintaining structurally sound, safetransportation networks and developing anefficient intermodal system that promotes avigorous economy and an improved quality oflife.

Although many agree that Federal surfacetransportation legislation needs revamping,opinions differ on program goals and structure.The Administration led off the legislative processin February with its proposed 1991 SurfaceTransportation Assistance Act (subsequentlyreferred to as 1991 STAA), introduced as S. 610and H.R. 1351. This proposed legislationsubstantially restructures the existing programand reduces the Federal share in almost allprograms, although it maintains a highway focusand reemphasizes mass transit resources. Manytransportation and environmental interest groupshave also made recommendations.’

To help Congress sort through the numerousoptions 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 forTransi t Now, the Campaign for New Trans-portation Alternatives, Federal Highways for theFuture, the American Association of State Highwayand Transportation Officials, and the AmericanPublic Transit Association. Most were released inSpring 1991.

Model A is the most similar to the existingprogram, while Model D represents fundamentalchanges in program structure. However, allmodels place higher priority on systempreservation, operational improvements, andintermodal linkages than is currently given.

Three models assume a 5-year Federalspending level of $105.4 billion, which is theAdministration’s budget for highway and transitprograms and within the agreed on budgetceiling; Model D proposes higher Federalspending. To illustrate how the policy goals ofeach model could be implemented throughFederal spending, each model includes possiblespending allocations for major programs. Theintent is not to make recommendations, butrather to provide sample programs withcomponents that can be mixed and matched andthat serve as subjects for debate. Brieflysummarized below, the models and theirillustrative allocations of program funds aredescribed more fully in boxes 2-A, 2-B, 2-C, and2-D. Essential program components, such asland use and transportation planning, environ-mental concerns, safety, and research anddevelopment (R&D), that will be part of anyreauthorization legislation, are presented later inthis chapter.

GENERIC PROGRAM MODELS

Model A (see box 2-A) retains the currentbasic program categories and provides for astrong Federal role, preserving the present singlemode (separate highway and mass transitprograms) administrative structure. It empha-sizes preserving the existing system bymodifying project eligibility to fund highwayreconstruction, maintenance, and repair.Funding for rural secondary programs is raisedsubstantially. It also widens the funding eligibilityof operational improvements, particularly thoseaimed at congestion relief. To address metro-politan area and urban problems, mass transit,urban highway, and bridge programs receive ahigher 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 fundingof maintenance and operational improvements; set Federal match at 65 percent for construction of new roadsor capacity; 80 percent for reconstruction, repair, maintenance, and operational improvements; and 35percent for toll facilities.

Primary: Retain major features of current program; permit funding for maintenance and operationalimprovements, including congestion relief; set Federal match at 60 percent for new construction, 35 percentfor 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 maintenanceand operational improvement; set Federal match at 60 percent for new construction and 75 for other programcomponents; and initiate apportionment reform.

Urban: Increase funding; retain major features of current program; permitoperational improvements with priority to congestion relief strategies.

Bridge: Require bridge management program; reform bridge programprogram funding.

funding for maintenance and

apportionment; and increase

Transit: Retain major features of current program; emphasize capital replacement and increase fundingto reflect transit’s growing role in relieving congestion and environment problems.

Illustrative Expenditures and Matching Requirements

5-year Federal Federalexpenditures 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 prioritiesand no emphasis on intermodal coordination.Existing interest groups and rural areas are morelikely to be enthusiastic about this model thanurban or regional governments and those whofeel the present program structure is outmoded.

Model B (see box 2-B) and programexpenditures are based on the 1991 STAAproposed legislation. 2 The National HighwaySystem (NHS), planned to be about 165,000miles, is the top Federal priority for the 5-yearprogram, absorbing 60 percent of funding, ifInterstate completion is included. The purposeof NHS is to connect underserved parts of thecountry through construction of additionalroadways or through upgrading the capacity andservice of existing highways. The Urban/RuralProgram, designed as a State block grant,receives 25 percent of total funding. The States,with cooperation from local officials, areresponsible for allocating Urban/Rural funds andoverseeing programs.

The Federal matching share for NHS issubstantially higher than for Urban/Ruralprograms and transit. State apportionmentformulas for NHS and Urban/Rural are tiedclosely to fuel consumption taxes, an index usedas a surrogate for highway use. Systempreservation is emphasized in some situationsover new construction, and for the first timefunding is provided for maintenance (onInterstate only) and operational improvementsto address congestion. Highway systemrenovation and operational improvementsreceive a higher match than new capacityconstruction. Specifically, maintenance ofInterstate highways is eligible for funding underthe National Highway System program, a neededboost for rural States, and 3-R projects(restoration, rehabilitation, and resurfacing) retain90 percent Federal funding. However, the fourthR (reconstruction) projects, which usually involvenew construction like additional lanes andinterchanges, drop from a 90 percent to 75percent Federal match. State management

programs are required for safety, pavement,congestion, and bridges. Highway projects inurbanized areas that increase capacity must beconsistent with the State congestion manage-ment plan.

Transit funding is held constant for theauthorization period, but cuts occur in grantprograms for large systems and new starts. Theprimary source of funding for formula programsis shifted to the Mass Transit Account of theHighway Trust Fund, and a “flexibility” provisionpermits funding either highway or transitprograms from this source. The languageconcerning land-use planning and air qualitycompliance is a step in the right direction, but itdoes not specifically require a Statetransportation plan and leaves lines of authorityundefined.

The tradeoffs associated with this modelinclude: the appropriateness of a program thatmoves “America Into the 21st CenturyN with anintercity highway plan as the conceptualframework of a national transportation policy; theFederal commitment and spending prioritiesnecessary to support a 165,000-mile nationalhighway system and that allocate only 25percent of Federal funding to Urban/Ruralproblems; the low priority given to transit; andthe question of whether States can affordsubstantially higher matching ratios. Transitgroups and representatives of urbanized regionsare unlikely to support this model.

Model C is one type of program configurationusing transportation and technology analysisreported in Delivering the Goods.3 Model Cexemplifies a transitional program toward afuture, fully intermodal system that addressescurrent mobility and environmental problems(see box 2-C). It emphasizes system pre-servation, metropolitan and rural needs,developing an integrated, balanced urban andintercity transportation system, and increasingsystem efficiency. Local decisionmaking is

2 For more spec i f i c i n fo rma t ion s ee S . 610 andH . R . 1 3 5 1 a n d s u p p o r t i n g d o c u m e n t s , U . S .Depa r tmen t o f T ranspo r t a t i on , Fede ra l H ighwayAdmin i s t r a t i on “Fac t s Shee t s , ” 1991 ; and U .S .Depa r tmen t o f T ranspo r t a t i on , Fede ra l H ighwayAdministration, Moving America Into the 21st

Century (Washington, DC: 1991).3 U . S . C o n g r e s s ,O f f i c e o f T e c h n o l o g yAssessment, Delivering the Goods: Public WorksTechnologies, Management, and Financing, OTA-S E T - 4 7 7 ( W a s h i n g t o n , D C : U . S . G o v e r n m e n tPrinting 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 arteriabe determined by the States and the Federal Highway Administration.Eligible projects include construction,reconstruction, maintenance for Interstate, operational improvements, intermodal linkages, and toFederal 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 g0.5 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 insecptimanagement system for National Highway System bridges.

Urban/Rural Program: Gives States flexibility in funding and administering projects under brFederal guidelines.Eligible projects include construction,rehabilitation, operational and managemenimprovements, 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 TFund with a bonus program for innovative solutions to congestion, air quality, or rural access. Pcongestion, 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 1991Surface Transportation Assistance Act

Programs

5-year Federal Federalexpenditures 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 substitutionand Federal lands 3.0

Safety c 2.4 60

I Transit 1 6 . 0 60-50

I Total $105.4

a Research finds come primarily from set-asides from the first four State-aid programs and theOffice 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 10percent additional miles in undeserved corridors and regions. Eligible projects include repair,reconstruction, maintenance, operational improvements, traffic management and control, development ofintermodal links, and limited new construction. Twenty percent is transferable to Metropolitan and Ruralprograms. Projects must conform to Federal standards and to adopted State transportation and air qualityimprovement plans.

Metropolitan Program: Funds surface transportation system improvements in Standard MetropolitanStatistical Areas and other urban areas (population over 50,000). Eligible projects include repair,maintenance, congestion relief, operational improvements, traffic management and control, transit capitaland operating costs, intermodal linkages, and some new construction. The programs could be administeredby regional metropolitan planning organizations in cooperation with the State; projects must conform toadopted State or regional transportation and air quality improvement plans. A restructured apportionmentformula could be based on data collection and analysis programs that establish measures of need, equity, anddesired performance.

Rural Program: Funds highway rehabilitation, repair, maintenance, limited new construction, andallows flexibility to address other unique needs of rural areas. Bonuses could be provided for the States withlow fiscal capacity.

Bridge Program: Facilitates systematic bridge repair, reconstruction, and preventive maintenance.

Transit Program:

Maintains current structure; increases research and development funding, especially strategies thateffectively serve suburban areas, institutionalizes preventive maintenance, and increases funding to reflecttransit’s role in relieving metropolitan congestion and air pollution.

Illustrative Expenditures and Matching Requirements

5-year Federalexpenditures

Programs (in billions)

Interstate $25.0

Metropolitan 29.0

Rural 8.0

Bridge 11.0

Research, planningand special programs 10.0

Safety b 2.4

Transit 20.0Total $105.4

a Where there is a range, the lower percentage is for new construction.b Category includes highway and motor carrier safety.

Federalsharea

90-70%

75-60

75-60

75-60

75

75-60

—

25

strengthened, and State/local long-range plan-ning and financing coordination is required. Itcould add bonuses for low density and thepoorest States.

Federal assistance for completing andmaintaining the Interstate highway system andaddressing the congestion and environmentalissues of metropolitan areas (where almost 60percent of the population live) are top priorities.The level of investment in rail and bus transit andhigh-occupancy travel of all sorts is raised toreflect the key role it can play in relieving theseproblems. Rural interests are protected bymaintaining a separate program and funding isincreased over current levels for improving ruralaccessibility and intercity travel and roadmaintenance.

Because the next 5 years will be a retoolingperiod from a single-mode focus to building andmaintaining a more balanced intermodal system,changes in apportionment formulas andmatching ratios in this model need to reflectthese goals. The major tradeoffs of this programare that Interstate and regional highwayspending, particularly for new construction, isnot emphasized, and Federal spending controlis considerably less. Although currentmetropolitan socioeconomic and land-usetrends and public policy encourage single-occupancy automobile trips, this model placesheavy emphasis on planning and developmentof intermodal systems and modal alternatives. Itassumes that with stronger support at theFederal and State levels, Metropolitan PlanningOrganizations (MPOs) will overcome some of thepolitical rivalries that limit their effectivenessnow, but they may not succeed in this. Statelong-range planning must consider rural areaswhose needs may be downgraded as urbanrepresentation in legislatures increases. Manyinterest groups will dislike the emphasis in thismodel on more centralized planning.

Model D takes several further steps towardan integrated national transportation system.The underlying premise of Model D is a unifiedFederal surface transportation program, underwhich the U.S. Department of Transportation(DOT) combines the modal administrations ofhighways, mass transit, and passenger rail intoone entity that operates under a unified budget.

State transportation agencies would be en-couraged to follow a similar pattern.

The majority of Federal funds would beallocated to States in the form of SurfaceTransportation Grants (see box 2-D). Inaccordance with State-developed, intermodalsystem plans, which are reviewed or approved atthe Federal level for consistency with State airquality improvement plans, each State woulddecide how grant funds would be apportioned forhighways, rural roads, bridges, transit, and awide range of high-occupancy travel options.State autonomy would be abridged only if DOTdecided the State planning process was deficientor the Interstate system was not being main-tained to standards. Close cooperation would beencouraged at all levels of government for theplanning, funding, and operations of surfacetransportation and air and water transport.

As part of program integration, the HighwayTrust Fund would be restructured as the SurfaceTransportation Fund, eliminating the divisionbetween highways and transit. In developing anapportionment process for Surface Trans-portation Grants, Congress could considerfactors such as fiscal capacity, incentives forcongestion reduction, and the severity of airquality problems.

To tackle the backlog of rehabilitation andmaintenance projects and to ensure theeconomic payoff of improved transportationefficiency, Model D increases funding 20 percentover projected budget ceilings for surfacetransportation. The new monies reflect theenvironmental, safety, and broad socioeconomicbenefits of more efficient intermodal trans-portation. Potential sources of revenue would bea gradually increased Federal gas tax, a new taxearmarked for integrated transportation, andtimely spending of the existing Trust Fundbalances.

The major tradeoffs of this program are thatit completes the financial and administrativeintegration of Federal-aid to surface trans-portation in one step and transfers most programapproval responsibility to the States. Suchchanges pose major political hurdles since theyrequire restructuring established and familiarprogram 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 TransportationGrant Programs:

Interstate Completion Program: Would consist of completing Interstate construction projects alreadybegun or authorized and a limited number of additional miles in underserved corridors. The Federal share is90 percent. Construction must comply with Federal standards.

Surface Transportation Grant Program: Consolidates funding and program administration forhighways, bridges, transit, commuter rail, and intermodal linkages. State Departments of Transportationadminister grant finds, which are completely interchangeable once transportation, air quality, congestion,pavement, and bridge management plans are in place. Repair, maintenance, congestion relief, operationalimprovements, traffic management and control, transit capital and operating costs, intermodal linkages, andsome new construction programs in urban and rural areas are eligible for funding.

Administering agents could be metropolitan planning organizations or local governments in towns andcounties under 50,000 in cooperation with the State. Projects should conform to adopted State transportationand air quality improvement plans and metropolitan transportation improvement programs. Theapportionment formula could be based on data and analysis that establish measures of need and desiredperformance. Factors such as fiscal capacity, population density, and severity of air quality problems couldbe considered. Funding is 20 percent higher than current ceilings.

illustrative Expenditures and Matching Requirements

5-year Federal Federalexpenditures sharea

Prowwms jin billions) @2xQM

Interstate Completion $14 90-70%

Surface Transportation 98 75-60Grant Program (highway,transit and para-transit,rail, and bridge)

Research, planningand 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 con-gressional program and project authority.Furthermore, to accelerate repair of existingsystems, the model proposes a funding level 20percent higher than the budget ceiling permits,necessitating changes in congressionalpriorities.

PUNNING, SAFETY, R&D, AND OTHERPROGRAM COMPONENTS

Compliance with and support for Federalsafety and environmental laws are basiccomponents of any reauthorization legislation.Close cooperation between Federal, State, andlocal transportation and environmental officialswill be necessary to achieve compliance with theClean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Informationand planning tools to help transportation officialstoward this end, safety programs, and R&D areother essential programs for urban and ruralsurface transportation.

Land-Use and Transportation Planning

While State land-use and transportationplanning are crucial to efficient and productivetransportation, few States have effective growthmanagement planning programs. Localdecision makers do not have control overactivities of neighboring jurisdictions, and withouta State requirement, regional consensus ondevelopment goals rarely develops. Moreover,State policies frequently limit local authority,especially for revenue raising, thereby thwartingmeaningful regional planning and budgeting.

Since most States lack long-rangetransportation planning programs, MPOs fundedby DOT, are largely responsible for the regionaltransportation planning being done now. 4 Theyare charged with preparing the federally requiredTransportation Improvement Program (TIP)which is a region’s principal transportationplanning instrument. Despite this potentiallyimportant role, their performance is generallyuneven--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 theFoundations: A Special Report on State and LocalPublic Works Financing and Management, OTA-SET-447 (Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, March 1990), chs. 3 and 4.

independence and State executive and legislativesupport. To change these conditions at the Stateand local levels, new surface transportationlegislation could:

● Require States to prepare and adopt a 5-year comprehensive, multimodal Statetransportation and financing plan (inconsultation with MPOs) to guide Stateinvestment, development, and air qualityimprovement programs. Plancomponents should include land-useand growth management, congestion,safety, maintenance, and ruralaccessibility. The plan would cover allpublicly and privately fundedconstruction and rehabilitation projects.Annual or biennial reviews would ensurea realistic framework for annual updatingof local TIPs and development of localplans for nonmetropolitan areas.

● Require States to identify a single MPOin each metropolitan statistical area,possibly with coterminous boundaries tothose of the regional air quality district.In multi-State metropolitan areas,incentives for a single MPO or a strongregional compact will be needed.

● Increase Federal funding for planning,including the required TIP preparation,long-range, land-use planning (growthmanagement in developing regions), andregional data collection and analysis.(See program allocation tables in thefour generic models for specific sourcesof Federal funds.) This capability will beessential for States to allocate resourcesequitably among urban and rural areasand as a basis for preparing andevaluating 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 planfor regional transit and commuter railfacilities, as well as ground links with railterminals and air and seaports.

Safety

Motor carrier safety and heavy tractor-trailercombination truck safety are discussed in detailin chapter 3, but an in-depth review of otheraspects of surface transportation safety

28

programs is beyond the scope of this document.However, OTA’s research for its transportationsafety studies and for Delivering the Goodspoints to the need for addressing safety byimproving the physical condition of roadwaysand bridges. In addition, vehicle safety activitiesof the National Highway Traffic SafetyAdministration (NHTSA) need to be integratedmore fully with the safety programs of theFederal Highway Administration (FHWA),especially in the area of human factors. DOTdata collection programs for safety purposes andfor use in regulatory and program analysis needto be made more systematic and compre-hensive, especially in the areas of freight andpassenger movements, to further understandingof accident rates.

Funding for highway safety could be raisedover current levels to reflect increased vehicleownership and travel. Priorities for expandedFederal effort include changes to safetyprograms necessary to accommodate an agingpopulation of drivers and pedestrians, the largedisparity between truck and car sizes, and theaging highway network. The Federal programmatch at 75 percent is a reasonable level,reflecting the Federal responsibility for safetyregulation.

The concept of a Federal incentive safetybonus program, as proposed in the 1991 STAA isan excellent one. However, to be mosteffective, such incentives should be used topromote safety both through highwayimprovements (such as better signage,railroad grade crossings, and lane changes),and through improvements to driver andpedestrian safety (such as a decrease indrunk driving and the pedestrian injury anddeath rates). Current programs focus on onetype or another, reflecting overly narrow interestgroup and congressional committee concerns.

Research and Development

At present, Federal R&D is funded primarilythrough the appropriated budgets for eachseparate mode (see table 2-l). OTA did not lookin detail at surface transportation agency R&Dactivities related to intermodal surfacetransportation, but most of the few projects thatexist are housed in the Urban MassTransportation Administration (UMTA); the rest

are scattered throughout the department.Congress could consider requiring DOT toundertake a comprehensive, departmentwide,in-depth review of surface R&D programs withthe goal of developing a strategic R&D plan.Such an effort is long overdue. DOT’s statementof R&D policy5 is a general, broad statement ofprinciples, not a strategic plan for meeting thefuture. To make best use of scarce dollars, thework of the Federal Railroad Administration(magnetic levitation), UMTA (mass transit andcommuter rail, as well as some smartcar/smart highway work), NHTSA, and FHWAmust be coordinated and viewed ascomponents of a strategy for moving towardan efficient intermodal transportation system.

Highway R&D

FHWA R&D is funded almost entirely throughprogram set-asides from the Highway TrustFund, with much of the money funneled to theStates or entities outside FHWA. For example,the Strategic Highway Research Program(SHRP) receives 0.25 percent of each State’sapportionment. SHRP, whose agenda isweighted heavily toward paving materialsdurability research, broke new ground by activelyinvolving State DOTS in planning and executionof its R&D program, an effort that is expected topay off in facilitating technology transfer. Thework being done under SHRP is scheduled to beintegrated into FHWA’s research program at theend of the program’s 5-year life. When thatoccurs, ensuring that program integration andclose cooperation with the States continues isvitally important. These programs are ofparticular importance to States with largemaintenance responsibilities.

Other highway R&D programs include FHWAcontract and staff research and the HighwayPlanning and Research Program (HP&R), whichis funded through a 1.5 percent State set-aside,out of which the SHRP funds are also allocated.Some aspects of these programs have beendisappointing. For example, the HP&R Programprovides States with resources for their highwayplanning and information gathering efforts, butStates are able to devote only a small fraction ofthis money to actual research.

s U.S. Department of T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , “AStatement of U.S. Department of TransportationResearch and Development Policy, ” unpublished

29

Table 2-l-Surface Transportation Research and Development

FY 1991 fundingAgency (millions of dollars) Funding source Comments

Federal Highway AdministrationHighway Planning and Research $51” A portion of 1.5 percent set-aside Supports State and local

Program of Federal-aid instruction planning, traffic measure-funds from the Highway Trust ment, and other researchFund

National Cooperative Highway 8 5.5 percent set-aside of HP&R Contract research managedResearch Program funds by Transportation Re-

search Board (NationalResearch Council)

27bHighway Trust FundContract and staff research 10 percent inhouse research;

balance in contracts

Strategic Highway ResearchProgram

Federal Railroad Admlnlstratlon

30 0.2 percent set-aside fromHighway Trust Fund

15 From appropriated budget

Contract R&D focused onhighway construction;5-year program

Inhouse and contract R&D(does not include $10million for magneticlevitation rail initiative)

Urban Mass Transportation 2 From appropriated budget Development projectsAdminlstration

National Highway Traffic SafetyAdministrationHighway safety, motor vehicle, 23 From appropriated budget Highway vehicle and

and other research pedestrian safetyNational 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 beendrastically cut back over the past dozen years,plummeting from $52 million in 1980 to $2 millionin fiscal year 1991. Projects ranging from studiesof the effects of fare increases on transit ridership(the results of these are still used today) tosubway tunneling techniques fell by the wayside.A cooperative research program between theFederal Government and transit agencies neverreceived full support and was dropped in themid-1980s.

UMTA’s plans now include a Transit Planningand Research Program that includes bothnational (or Federal) and State and localcomponents .6 Funding is planned to be almost

manuscript, January 1991.b U.S. Department of Transportation, Urban MassTransportation Administration, “Planning andResearch: A New Urban Mass TransportationAdministration Program, w unpublished manuscript,

3 percent of the total transit program appro-priation, with one-third retained by DOT for anational planning and research program and two-thirds to States for planning and research and arevived cooperative research program.7 Theseplans seem carefully structured and well worthcongressional support.

New Technologies

Despite the development by entrepreneurs ofpromising new technologies, few have actuallybeen applied on Federal-aid projects. Moreover,companies trying to introduce new technologiesoften find the process time-consuming,cumbersome, and eventually unproductive oreven defeating. Since it had the backing of itsEuropean parent, the company described in box2-E was better able to devote resources toconvincing public officials in the United States ofthe worth of its product than many of the smallcompanies 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 newtechnologies to increase the useful lives of the Nation’s roads and bridges would seem to be a cost-effectiveapproach. Technologies, such as cathodic protection and new techniques of repaving roads, althoughsomewhat more costly to instalI, could potentially save lives and billions of dollars by slowing infrastructuredeterioration. But despite their availability, government timidity and cumbersome public procedures oftenprevent using such technologies during rebuilding.

The polymer modified asphalt binder, Novophalt, is one example of a new technology whoseintroduction has been impeded by the complicated approval process of the Federal Government and thereluctance of most public officials to stray from familiar paths. The binder, which increases pavementdurability, 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 10years later.

Although it costs an estimated 4 to 8 percent more per project than conventional asphalt mixtures, thecompany estimates that its product can extend pavement service life from 50 to 100 percent. If life-cyclecost estimates are used, Novophak officials argue, their product could potentially reduce costs up to 50percent from those of conventional asphalt. 1 Studies by different Federal agencies appear to bear out thecompany’s assertions. A report released by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), while notmentioning 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.”3To 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 thematerial was used in reconstruction of city streets in Manhattan, it performed much better than standardasphalt over the same period of time. Armed with such positive results, Novophalt officials hoped to win acontract for paving a new airport runway. However, their proposal was met with resistance by managers atthe local airport authority, who were unfamiliar with the technology and had not read the FAA report aboutthe performance of polyethylene-modified asphalt. 4 When the company sought a contract to repave sectionsof a local parkway system, Federal Highway Administration officials asked Novophalt to conduct yetanother demonstration project in the area, despite their successful demonstrations for numerous StateDepartments of Transportation.

The company’s experience is illustrative of the difficulties entrepreneurs face when trying to introducea 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 internationalcompetition, Federal agencies are wary of foreign technologies because of different operating conditions andperceived scarcity of data.5 Furthermore, public officials are concerned about the risks of price changes orsupply problems associated with purchasing a proprietary technology from a private source. Even thoughthe FederaI Government encourages private industry to develop new technologies, the reluctance of officialsto contract for proprietary innovations makes public works technology development an unprofitable venturefor 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. f-

A. F. Stock and G. Anderton, “An Assessment of the Resistance to Permanent Deformation ofl#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, April1991), p. 201.

31

their frustration over the futility of their efforts.Future R&D activities in DOT must makeevaluation of the operating and cost-effectiveness of new technologies a priority, tobegin moving the best of them into wider use.As one example caused by past inattention to theimportance of technologies, the types ofautomated toll collection facilities now speedingdrivers through toll facilities in Dallas, Texas, NewOrleans, and Oklahoma have been available forsome time, yet have only recently beenimplemented. FHWA has belatedly begun toemphasize Intelligent Vehicle/Highway Systems(IVHS) programs, but their benefits are stillunrealized in numerous metropolitan regions withterrible congestion problems that IVHS couldaddress. Demonstration projects, originallydesigned and used to test new technologies,now consist of many projects that break no newtechnical ground. Too often, they are used tofund improvements or construct a new localfacility, giving demonstrations, originally a goodidea, a bad name.

R&D Priorities

Top prioritiestechnologies that

for short-term R&D areaddress maintenance,

rehabilitation, and system preservation,including: materials, construction equipment,processes, technologies, and techniques toease both highway and urban traffic con-gestion and improve intermodal connections.8

Materials that improve the longevity of pavementand bridges may cost more initially, but manyultimately prove cost-effective over the life of thefacility. Asphalt products using recycledmaterials such as tires and plastics have provensuccessful under the right circumstances, andincreased research could refine them to makewidespread use a feasible option. FHWA’Semphasis on IVHS is an appropriate first step.IVHS technologies for highway operations andbetter traffic management can help alleviatecongestion and also permit some forms ofcongestion pricing.

8 The Federal Highway Administration’s draftreport, “Research and Technology Program 1992-1996” (updated in August 1990), shows that theagency is moving toward setting priorities for itsown research and development program. The reportfocuses heavily on highways, which limits itsusefulness in addressing future transportation needs.

However, over the longer term, IVHSactivities now under way in UMTA and NHTSAmust be fully integrated in the DOT IVHS plan,and IVHS activities must be one component of alarger departmental strategic research program.Other surface transportation technologies thatneed support, including funding, in the near terminclude examination of the cost-effectiveness ofseparate high-speed rail or magnetic levitationtrain service in the most heavily traveled intercitycorridors. Longer term construction and im-plementation of the appropriate system is likelyto be desirable in these corridors to supplementexisting services.

Evaluation or demonstration projects will benecessary to move these technologies intowidespread use. A comprehensive, preprojectreview process, such as that employed by SHRP,for proposed demonstration projects couldeliminate those with insufficient technical merit.

The natural aversion to risk by mostgovernment officials is often compounded withunfamiliarity with current technologies.Increasing the training given to highway officialsat all levels of government could make theseindividuals more amenable to implementing newtechnologies. Expanding the National HighwayInstitute, as FHWA proposes, is an important firststep for accomplishing this goal.

Long-range planning and R&D that lookahead to future problems simply do not existat DOT, and this is a serious deficiency. Theissue needs a careful scrutiny by Congressand DOT itself. A strategic, departmentwideR&D plan that looks beyond surfacetransportation is the first step towardimplementing the national transportationstrategy. Congress may wish to require DOTto address this issue in the near future.

Data Collection and Performance Measures

Accurate baseline data and performancemeasures are important keys to improvingtransportation performance. Transportation datacollection was severely curtailed during the1980s, and it will take time to acquire enoughinformation to develop good performance goals.To plan for the future, DOT needs to know moreabout travel patterns, congestion causes, andland-use transportation relationships. As a first

step, DOT plans to conduct a multimodalpassenger and freight transportation survey infiscal years 1992 and 1993. Congressionalsupport for full funding of this effort is crucial.At present we are making decisions aboutbillions of dollars in Federal expendituresbased on 15-year-old data that wereinadequate to begin with.

Private Sector Investment

roads under special, carefully crafted agree-ments. The success of these projects inenduring the lengthy environmental impactstatement process or a prolonged, severeeconomic downturn remains to be seen. Fewother examples of such projects exist in thiscountry, although they are more common inEurope. The legal and institutional framework inthe United States indicates that public funding fortransportation facilities is likely to predominatefor the foreseeable future.

Parts of the country with growing popula-tions and relatively healthy economies can attractprivate investment for public facilities, andCalifornia has arranged several privately financed

33

Chapter 3

Motor Carrier Issues

As Congress considers the reauthorization ofthe Federal highway program, two fundamentalissues under debate are how to restructure theFederal-aid program and how to pay for thenecessary highway improvements. Spearheadedby the American Trucking Associations (ATA),the trucking industry has made clear that if highertruck taxes are considered as part of a fundingpackage, the industry will push for regulatorychanges to increase their operating productivity.However, some of the suggested reforms haveimpacts that greatly concern other members ofthe transportation community, and debate on thisissue has been intense. For example, Stateshave long been in the process of developingagreements to bring their different motor carrierregistration, permitting, and fuel tax proceduresinto greater conformity, so that national andregional trucking companies need not file foroperating authority separately in each State.Some progress has been made; for example, theInternational Registration Plan now includes over40 States. However, the International Fuel TaxAgreement includes fewer than 20 States, and nouniversally acceptable compact exists. Truckingcompanies contend that Federal preemption ofState authority (always a difficult issue) in thisarea is warranted.

Issues of motor carrier safety have also beencontentious, with industry sources maintainingthat Federal data show that the heavy trucksafety record per mile traveled has improved.However, safety reports contend that Federaldata substantially underestimate carrieraccidents’ and that the federally funded MotorCarrier Safety Assistance Program needs toimprove its enforcement activities and addressuniformity issues associated with penalties andregulations. 2

1 See, for example, U.S. Congress, Office ofTechnology 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 themost recent very difficult issue--long heavytrucks, known as longer combination vehicles(LCVs)--to assist Congress in its deliberations onthe highway reauthorization. It discusses theirperformance on the highway, the institutional andregulatory framework, technologies andprograms that could enhance their safety, theireffects on motorists and highway condition, andmarket impacts. It also provides information onan industry proposal to increase bus productivityby permitting longer intercity buses.

LARGE, HEAVY TRUCKS ON THE ROAD

The most recent Federal Highway Adminis-tration (FHWA) statistics show a total of 187million motor vehicles of all types, of which 76percent were automobiles, 0.3 percent werebuses, and about 23 percent were trucks. 3 Lighttrucks--pickups, panel trucks, and delivery vans,generally of 10,000 Ibs. or less gross vehicleweight (GVW)--make up the bulk (87 percent) ofthe 42-million-vehicle private and commercialtruck fleet, although they play only a minor role ininterstate commerce. 4 In 1989, 1.2 million truck-tractor power units and 3.7 million commercial-type trailers and semitrailers (most of theNation’s large, heavy trucks) were counted.Most tractor-trailer configurations travel close to100,000 miles per year, and they dominatecommercial interstate traffic.

One carrier industry proposal, greaterstandardization of State fuel tax programs andreporting requirements, is supported by theNational Governors’ Association consensusagenda5 and may be feasible as a productivity

Transportation: Motor Carrier Safety AssistanceProgram (MCSAP): Options Intended to Improve aGenerally Successjid and Cooperative Federal-StatePartnership Promoting Truck and Bus Safety, SenatePrint 100-109 (Washington, DC: June 1988); andReauthorization of the Motor Carrier SafetyAssistance Program (MCSAP): Options Intended toImprove Highway Safety, Senate Print 102-10(Washington, DC: March 1991).

35

enhancement. However, another industrysuggestion--changing the Federal policy to allowStates to determine individually whether andwhere to allow heavy trucks with multiple trailers,has generated substantial public resistance andenormous industry controversy. This issue isparticularly salient in view of industry successduring recent years in gaining permission tooperate 53-foot trailers in a steady succession ofeastern States, where they had hitherto not beenallowed. This shift occurred after a Federal lawwas passed that included an industry-backedrequirement for States to permit 48- and twin 28-foot trailers on highways built with Federal funds.State officials fear that industry supporters ofLCVs will become active in individual Statecapitols if the Federal posture on this issue isaltered.

While OTA’s research on the subject of LCVsanswered many questions, it raised almost asmany more. A mountain of studies has beendone by Federal and State Governments,universities, and industry groups, including anumber by the Transportation Research Board(TRB), an arm of the National Research Council.However, each TRB study has looked at specificissues, and no conclusions on wider use ofcurrent LCV configurations can legitimately bedrawn from them, despite some carrier claims.TRB has convened a planning group to considerthe need for more studies on the subject.6

LCVs DEFINED

A relatively small subset of the Nation’stractor-trailer combination total, LCVs aretypically multiunit combination trucks with grossvehicle weights in excess of 80,000 Ibs. Themost familiar type of multitrailer combinationvehicles are western (or short) doubles, allowedon a national basis on the Federal highwaynetwork since 1982. These consist of one tractorhauling two 26- to 28-foot trailers, and while theyare not considered LCVs, they have some of thesame handling properties.

LCVs proper include turnpike doubles, RockyMountain 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, each45- to 48-feet long, can weigh up to 135,000 Ibs.,and typically have eight or nine axles. RockyMountain doubles consist of one tractor haulingtwo trailers, the first of which is 45- to 48-feet longand the second, 26- to 29-feet long. Thesevehicles can weigh up to 115,000 Ibs. andtypically have seven axles. Triple combinationsconsist of one tractor hauling three 26-to 29-foottrailers, can weigh up to 110,000 Ibs., and haveseven axles. 7 LCVs can also include bulkcommodity doubles, in turnpike double or RockyMountain double configurations, used totransport dry bulk, liquid, or gaseous products intank-type trailers. At present, Rocky Mountaindoubles are the most widely used LCVs.

LCV operations of one type or another arealready allowed in some 20 States, primarily inthe West, but also in the East on toll roads andturnpikes (see figures 3-3, 3-4, and 3-5). In someareas, and under restricted conditions, LCVshave been operating for as many as 30 years andtraveled hundreds of millions of miles. Accordingto State and industry data,8 the accident recordof LCVs equals or compares favorably with thatof other trucks. Most States permitting LCVs bartheir operations in inclement weather and restricttheir use to Interstate highways and roads of highdesign standard in uncontested areas. At issueis whether existing Federal size and weight limitsshould be retained, or whether each State shouldbe allowed to determine its own requirements, aneventuality that would almost certainly increasethe number of States where LCVs operate.

REGULATORY BACKGROUND

Since States first placed limitations ontrucking operations to protect their highwaysfrom 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, personalcommunication, May 6, 1991.7 A fourth configuration, known as a ‘Urner

double, was proposed as part of a TransportationResearch Board study and consists of one tractorhauling two 30- to 34-foot trailers and includes nineaxles. 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

increase allowable vehicle sizes and weights.The first State laws regulating truck weight wereadopted by Massachusetts and Maine in 1913,limiting gross vehicle weight (GVW) to 28,000 Ibs.and 18,000 Ibs., respectively. Pennsylvania laterexpanded on these regulations by placing asingle axle limit of 18,000 Ibs., a standard usedon Interstate highways until 1974, and was thefirst State to establish a size restriction, requiringthat all trucks on its roads be less than 90 incheswide. By 1933, all States had imposed totalvehicle weight limits, and almost all States hadadopted some sort of axle weight restrictions.g

Federal Standards

In response to State and industry concernsabout the lack of regulatory uniformity betweenStates, the American Association of StateHighway Officials, now the American Associationof State Highway and Transportation Officials(AASHTO), published a recommended programof uniform truck size and weight practices in1946. The weight limits consisted of 18,000 Ibs.for single axles, 32,000 Ibs. for tandem axles, and73,320 Ibs. for GVW, although States could allowheavier trucks under special permits.

However, no Federal standards were set until1956, with the passage of Federal legislationestablishing the Interstate highway constructionprogram. 10 At that time, the AASHTO axle and

gross vehicle weight recommendations and a 96-inch width limit were included in the law, whichapplied only to Interstate highways. Agrandfather clause allowed the continuingoperation of wider or heavier trucks in thoseStates where they were legal before the law’spassage. The legislation also called on theCommerce Department to issue a report on themaximum desirable size and weight of trucks.The study, completed in 1964, recommendedraising the weight restrictions to 20,000 Ibs. forsingle axles, 34,000 Ibs. for tandem axles, and105,5oo Ibs. for GVW.

The report also provided three different bridgeformula programs, aimed at addressing theeffects of heavy trucks on bridges built withFederal aid. One of the three, known as Bridge

foreseen by the trucking industry, since it does notmeet their market needs, and it is not discussedhere.8 However, ~ number of studies, including OTA’S

Formula B, was adopted. It allowed GVW toincrease as axle spacing increased andestablished two main Federal classes of bridges.The HS-20 formula, used for bridges on mostInterstate, allows axle weights that exceeddesign stress levels by 5 percent, while the H-15model accounts for a possible 30-percent weightincrease above optimum stress load.

For the HS-20, the hypothetical truck weighs72,000 Ibs. on three axles, 8,000 Ibs. for the frontaxles and 32,000 Ibs. for each of the tworemaining axles. An H-15 bridge is designed tosupport trucks weighing 54,000 Ibs. with a frontaxle weight of 6,000 Ibs. and the remainingweight evenly distributed between the axles. Thereasoning behind the more conservative formulafor excess weight on the HS-20 was the bridge’spredominance on the existing Federal-aid systemroads and the greater amount of truck travel onthese bridges.

Congress incorporated Bridge Formula B aspart of amendments to the highway act in1974 .11 The change in Federal weightregulations was made partly to offset industryconcerns about possible reductions in truckingproductivity resulting from legislation loweringthe Federal speed limit to 55 miles per hour(mph). 12 The amendments also permitted Statesto raise GVW and single and tandem axle weightlimits to the present limits of 80,000 Ibs., 20,000Ibs., and 34,000 Ibs., respectively.

Safety concerns registered at that time aboutwider use of larger trucks were countered by U.S.Department of Transportation (DOT)announcements that the trucks would beequipped with antilock brakes as required bynew Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards andthat new truck tire standards would soon go intoeffect. 3 However, the antilock brakerequirements for trucks were later struck down ina court decision (see later discussion of antilockbrakes) and no Federal standard for them has yetbeen promulgated.

Gearing Up For Safety (see the first footnote in thischapter), have raised concerns about the accuracyand completeness of State accident reports and data.9 National Research Council, TransportationResearch Board, Truck Weight Limits: Issues andOptions (Washington DC: 1990), p. 35.10 70 stat. 374.11 ~blic LWV 93-643.

42

Although by the early 1980s, only three Statesdid not allow 80,000 Ibs. GVW and required loweraxle weight limits on the Interstate system, theseStates were concentrated in the MississippiValley, a fact that had made coast-to-coasttransport difficult. Western doubles (28-foottwins) were allowed in 70 percent of the Statesbefore enactment of the Surface TransportationAssistance Act (STAA), with nearly all of theStates still prohibiting them located on the eastcoast.

The 1982 STAA’5 relaxed size and weightrestrictions further, requiring all States to allowthe weights permitted under the 1974amendments to operate on the Interstate system.These allowances were a tradeoff for increases inFederal heavy vehicle fuel taxes and user feesimposed by the STAA. The width limit wasincreased as well, this time to 102 inches. Theact also gave States control in deciding whichtrucks fell under the grandfather clause of 1956.In 1984, the Tandem Truck Safety Act’G againeased restrictions, by requiring States to givebroader access for single 28-foot-by-102-inchtrailers and freer access for 102-inch trailers ingeneral. Previously, the latter vehicles had beenlimited to roads with 12-foot-wide lanes.

Grandfather Clauses

The practical effect of the grandfathering ofexisting weight provisions in 1956 and 1974 hasbeen to create a great deal of variation amongthe States in allowable truck sizes and weights,even on the Interstate system. Moreover, Statescan and do allow overweight trucks to operate athigher weights off the Interstate system underlaws which vary widely from State to State (seedetailed discussion later in this chapter). Twoclasses of vehicles currently operate on theInterstate system at weights in excess of theFederal axle and gross weight limits undergrandfather clauses. One includes vehiclesallowed to operate at weights in excess of 20,000Ibs. single axle and 34,000 Ibs. tandem axle limits(or in excess of the Bridge Formula) in thoseStates with higher limits before the passage ofthe 1956 and 1974 acts. This covers single-unit

1 2 Tran~Portation Research Board, oPo cit. ,footnote 9, p. 36.13 u s Congress, Senate Committee on public. .Works, ?%e Federal-Aid Highway Amendment of1974, to accompany S. 3934 (Washington, DC:

bulk haulers such as concrete mixers, dumptrucks, garbage trucks, fire engines, and somelocal buses. The other class of heavier vehiclesallowed on the Interstate system are the variouscombination vehicles which operate underspecial permits.

All States allow single or short-term permitsfor weights in excess of 80,000 Ibs. for themovement of nondivisible loads. Furthermore,Federal law has been quite clear about the rightsof States to issue single-trip or short-term permitsfor nondivisible loads.

In addition, 29 States now issue multiple-trippermits for divisible loads on certain highwaysand under specific operating conditions underthe 1956 grandfather provision, an increase from22 States in 1987. Some groups have arguedthat multiple-trip special permits for divisibleloads should not have been covered by thegrandfather provisions of the 1956 act. Extensivecontroversy has also surrounded theinterpretation of State laws and State practicesthat were in effect in 1956. The amendment tothe weight section in the STAA of 1982 wasintended to clarify these arguments and providethat States’ interpretations of their laws andpractices in 1956 should prevail.

In recent years, some States that allow LCVshave substantially increased the numbers ofspecial permits issued. This became necessarywhen shippers and their customers developednew markets made possible by the higherweights allowed under the permits. However,FHWA has become concerned that thegrandfather clauses are being used to nullifyFederal weight regulations in some States.

HANDLING AND SAFETY CHARACTERISTICS

Although the handling and stabilitycharacteristics of trucks depend greatly on theroad geometry, pavement properties, equipmentcondition, number of axles, number, length, andweight of units, and how they are loaded andoperated, any articulated vehicle is moredifficult to drive safely than a straight truck orautomobile. Some general comparisons can bemade, however, between and among LCVs andconventional five-axle tractor-semitrailers. Forexample, triples have better low-speedmaneuverability because of their short trailer

43

wheelbases. Generally, low-speed offtracking,which occurs when the trailing axles of a vehiclemigrate toward the center of a curve, is greatestfor turnpike doubles, followed by RockyMountain doubles, conventional tractor-semitrailers, and triples. The greater theofftracking, the wider the road needs to be toaccommodate turns. 17

However, when multiple trailers areconnected by conventional converter dollies, ’8trailer sway, especially in emergency maneuvers,is greatest for triples, followed by westerndoubles, Rocky Mountain doubles, turnpikedoubles, and tractor-semitrailers. Articulatedvehicles with more than one trailer experiencestrong side forces on the rear unit during rapidsteering movements, such as those necessary toavoid an accident. The effects of the side forcesare magnified between the tractor and rearmosttrailer, often creating unstable behavior, such astrailer swing that can lead to rollover. ’g Thisrearward amplification is of particular concernwith triple combinations, but rear trailer rolloveroccurs even with western (short) doubles.20 Theweight of each trailer and overall weightdistribution also affect stability, making carefulloading and trailer sequencing especiallyimportant. No Federal standards currently existfor trailer order or weight distribution.

Engine power and torque requirements tomaintain minimum speed on grades increasewith vehicle weight. Thus the most power andtorque are needed for turnpike doubles, followedby triples, Rocky Mountain doubles, and tractor-semitrailers. Currently, no Federal requirementsexist for engine power to ensure adequateminimum speeds, and such requirements wouldbe difficult to enforce. However, State

U.S. Government Printing Office, Aug. 20, 1974).1A National Research Council, TransportationResearch 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 aNationwide Network for Longer CombinationVehicles (Washington, DC: June 1985), p. III-3.18 These are known as A-dollies, which have asingle drawbar attaching to a pintle hook on thepreceding trailer.19 W-R*J. Mercer et al., Test and DernonstratiOn of

requirements for adequate performance andability to maintain a minimum speed ongrades could be enforceable and could helpensure adequate power.2’

Braking power requirements also increasewith vehicle weight, but braking distancedepends on vehicle weight, tire and pavementcharacteristics, weight distribution, and thenumber of brake-equipped axles. In general,when each vehicle is comparably loaded andbrakes are adjusted properly, stopping distanceis essentially the same for all configurations.Under empty or partial loading, particularly whenthe 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 thatemploy defensive driving techniques is animportant means of avoiding accidents forarticulated vehicles. Indeed, accident experiencewith LCVs thus far indicates that properly traineddrivers operating in Iight-traffic-density, sparselypopulated regions of the country can operateLCVs safely. However, even the best truckingcompanies complain that finding good drivers isdifficult at present, and wider use of LCVs couldlower the general skill level of LCV drivers andincrease LCV exposure to dangeroussituations. 22 If LVCs are operated in trafficmixes that increase the need for avoidancemaneuvers, increases in crashes and rolloverscan be expected.

A number of vehicle technologies areavailable or are being developed, however, tocounter the handling difficulties of articulatedtrucks and make them safer and/or mitigatedamage to the infrastructure. These include

Double and Triple Trailer Combinations(Downsview, Ontario, Canada: Ontario Ministry ofTransportation and Communications, August 1982),p. 17.ZO National Transportation Safety Board,recommendation H-90-7, 1990.21 Larry Strawhorn, A m e r i c a n TruckingAssociations, personal communication, May 7,1991.22 OTA understands that companies with strongdriver screening and training requirements, such as

44

antilock brakes, double-drawbar dollies formultiple-unit trucks, automatic slack adjusters, airsuspension systems, and many others.

Brakes

Faulty braking systems are a contributingfeature in a significant portion of truck accidents;they can contribute to accidents by not stoppingthe vehicle in time or causing wheel lockup,jackknifing, or trailer swing. Experts estimatethat roughly one-half of all air-braked vehicleshave at least one brake out of adjustment. Theoverall effect of recent fuel efficiencyimprovements, such as radial tires with lowerrolling resistance, aerodynamic shields, andreduced friction engines, is roughly equivalent toincreasing the slope of downgrades by 1percent. 23 This places a much greater premiumon properly maintained braking systems.

LCVs have more complex braking systemsthan conventional tractor-trailers, because themultiple trailers require more brake sets, each ofwhich must be properly adjusted to ensureproper balance, timing, and torque. In addition,tractor and trailer brakes are certified separately,which places an especially large burden on thoseresponsible for LCV maintenance to ensurecompatibility between the tractor and varioustrailer brake sets. Often motor carriers do notcontrol specification and maintenance of all theequipment used in their operations.

Adjustments must be made frequently duringthe life of a lining with manual adjusting brakes.Automatic slack adjusters can keep brakes inbetter adjustment, provide improved braking,and reduce maintenance costs. Thoughautomatic slack adjusters are fairly standard ontractors, they are not consistently used ontrailers, except by the larger fIeets.24 RecentNational Transportation Safety Board inspectionsindicate that even automatic adjusters do notalways ensure well-adjusted brakes and require

Yellow Freight Systems and United Parcel Service,will continue to use their most experienced andcapable drivers for longer combination vehicles(LCVS). However, no such assurances pertain tothe thousands of other potential operators of LCVS.23 Ian s. Jones, Insurance Institute for Highway

Safety, “Truck Air Brakes: Current Standards andPerformance,” proceedings of the 29th Conferenceof the American Society of Automotive Medicine,

some maintenance.25

A number of studies suggest that antilockbrakes (known as ABS), particularly if introducedon all axles of a configuration, may be effective inreducing the frequency of jackknifing and loss ofcontrol due to braking. At present, the NationalHighway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) isstudying ABS on a cooperative basis withindustry. Mandatory use of ABS was planned inthe United States about 15 years ago, whenFederal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 121 waspromulgated. However, ABS systems wereunreliable at that time, and suffered frommalfunctions caused by electromagneticinterference, among other problems. After a1978 court decision eliminating the stoppingdistance requirement that resulted in themandatory use of ABS, NHTSA proceeded onthe basis of independent testing before makingany decision on mandating ABS again. However,the trucking industry in the United States hasremained skeptical about ABS because of theirexperiences in the late 1970s with systems thatwere not technically mature.

NHTSA is now conducting a test programwith industry where 200 tractors have beenplaced in service with various ABS systems.26

Fifty ABS-equipped trailers will be operational byJune of 1991. Results of this program have beengenerally favorable and are expected to guideFederal regulatory efforts.

ABS is viewed by many safety experts as animportant accident prevention tool, especially inavoiding trailer swing, jackknifing, or loss ofsteering control during braking. Although fullbenefits are achieved only if ABS is employed onall axles, some improvement in braking controlcan result from any set of ABS-equipped axles.According to a 1988 survey of foreign experi-ence, 27 ABS systems used in Europe have many

1984, pp. 39-61.24 Ron Roudebusch, Rockwell hternational COW.,personal communication, Mar. 8, 1991; and JerryDeClair, Rockwell International Corp., personalcommunication, May 7, 1991.25 James Kolstad, National Transportation SafetY

Board Chairman, unpublished remarks at the MotorVehicle 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 properoperation, and drivers report feeling safer withABS and believe their vehicles can stop morequickly. Moreover, European experience withheavy truck and bus fleets indicates nointerference problems with radios or otherexternal electronic equipment. The systemsrequire no routine attention aside from checksperformed prior to and during required brakeinspections, and the life of the ABS equals that ofthe vehicle. The only frequently mentionedconcern is a problem with false alarm warninglights, which does not affect braking ability.

Trailer Connections and Suspensions

The double-drawbar dolly (C-dolly), used bysome companies in Canada, couples trailers in amanner that eliminates one articulation point,improves roll stability, and reduces rearwardamplification (see figure 3-6). It includes a self--steering axle to reduce high stress levels in theequipment due to tire scuffing in low-speed turns.The C-dolly also reduces low-speed offtrackingbecause the axle is self-steerable.

Self-steering axles are vulnerable to unequallongitudinal forces acting through the wheels ofthe axle, such as when one side is on a pavedroad and the other is on a dirt shoulder orpacked snow and ice. These weaknesses can beoffset with the use of an appropriate centeringforce system. Self-steering axles also requirelocking mechanisms to immobilize the steeringaction of the axle when the vehicle moves inreverse. These mechanisms can be controlledfrom the tractor cab. The locking feature of theC-dolly yields greater vehicle maneuverability intrucking terminals and staging areas.28 Forexample, the C-dolly enables multitrailercombinations to back up in a straight line forconsiderable distances. The C-dolly showspotential to reduce rearward amplification andtrailer rollovers and to improve maneuverabil-ity for all multitrailer combinations with trailers

paper, May 1990, pp. 1-2.27 paul S. Fancher, Transportation ResearchI n s t i t u t e , U n i v e r s i t y o f M i c h i g a n ,“European/Australian Experience With AntilockBraking Systems in Fleet Service, ” DOT FinalReport No. DOT HS 807269 (Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Transportation, March 1988).28 J. Woodroofe et al. , Vehicle DynamicsLaboratory, National Research Council of Canada,

less than 40 feet in length. This points to aneed for large-scale fleet testing. SomeCanadian provinces encourage the use of C-dollies over other hitching mechanisms byallowing vehicles equipped with them to carrygreater maximum weight.

The B-train hitch is an alternative to thestandard converter dolly used for multitrailercombinations. When B-trains are used, thetowing trailers must have an extended frame witha fifth wheel for attaching the next trailer (seefigure 3-6 again). The extended frame can besliding, which allows the trailer to be backed flushto a loading dock, or fixed. B-trains with fixedframes are difficult to use in some operationsbecause its protruding rear wheels preventbacking up the lead trailer flush to truck loadingdocks. Tests in Canada, where B-trains seesignificant use, indicate that they have superiorstability, handling, and offtracking characteristicscompared to conventional A-trains.*g As with theC-dolly, some Canadian provinces encouragethe use of B-trains by allowing companies usingthem to carry greater weights.

Technologies can also be used to mitigate theeffects of heavy trucks on pavements andbridges. For instance, air suspensions almostalways produce lower dynamic loads than steelleaf suspensions. Tests conducted in the UnitedKingdom show that axle loads on bridgesdecrease by as much as 27 percent when airsuspensions are used. Moreover, dynamic loadsincrease with speed more with steel leafsuspensions than with air suspensions. Thesefindings point to less wear on roads and bridgeswhen air suspensions are used. Air suspensionsalso reduce vibrations at the driver’s position,30

leading many drivers to prefer them, and canreduce equipment damage, particularly when atruck is traveling empty.

Despite the potential of these technologies tomake driving LCVs safer and easier, manu-facturers of such equipment have not found large

“Development of Design and Operational Guidelinesfor the C-Converter Dolly, ” paper presented at theSecond International Symposium on Heavy VehicleWeights and Dimensions, Kelowna, BritishColumbia, Canada, June 18-22, 1989.29 J R Billing et al., “Test of a B-Tmin COnVerter. .Dolly” (Downsview, Ontario, Canada: OntarioMinistry of Transportation and Communications,

46

Figure 3-6-Hitching Mechanisms for Twin-Trailer Trucks

A-train hitch

47

markets for their products. Technological aidssuch as ABS and double-drawbar dollies showmuch potential to improve safety, particularlyin emergency situations. Requirements forthese, or similar technologies capable ofproviding controlled braking and reducingtrailer sway, are essential to ensure low LCVaccident rates. Congress could require DOT toimplement standards for these technologies forcompanies using LCVs.

LCV Accident Records

Despite the handling difficulties of LCVs andthe fact that the types of safety-enhancingtechnologies discussed above are not commonlyused, most research and accident recordsindicate that LCV fatal and nonfatal accidentrates per vehicle-mile traveled are equal to orbetter than those of other articulated trucks.However, most research also shows the accidentrate of multitrailer trucks--most of which arewestern (twin) doubles, since they are allowednationwide--to be higher than that ofconventional tractor-semitrailers.31 The reasonsfor the seeming contradictions are two-fold.First, recognizing the special skills required tooperate LCVs safely, most carriers assign theirmost skilled and experienced drivers to LCVS.32

No such precautions characterize the choice ofdrivers for western doubles. Second, because ofState permitting requirements, LCVS generallytravel over the safest roads and under the safestconditions. No such permitting proceduresapply to conventional tractor-semitrailer andwestern doubles operations, accounting for theirhigher accident rates. Western doubles appearto have the highest accident rates of allarticulated trucks.

However, previous LCV use and accidentexperience are simply inadequate todetermine accurately the consequences of

May 1983), pp. ii-iii.so C.G.B. Mitchell and L. Gyenes, Trmsport adRoad Research Laboratory, United Kingdom,“Dynamic Pavement Loads Measured for a Varietyof Truck Suspensions, ” unpublished report, 1989.3 1 For fur ther 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 NorthCarolina Highway Safety Research Center, “LargeTruck Safety in North Carolina, ” unpublished

LCV use on a wider network. For example,most large national accident databases--thosemost likely to provide sufficient data to givestatistically reliable information--have majorlimitations, including uneven levels of accidentreporting, inaccurate exposure data, andinsufficient level of detail. For instance, accidentand truck-use databases do not clearlydistinguish LCVs from other multitrailercombinations, because they do not include eithertrailer length or total vehicle length.

State and industry records on LCV operationsshow that triples have the lowest fatal accidentrate, followed by turnpike doubles and RockyMountain doubles. Again, this ranking results notfrom inherent characteristics of eachconfiguration, but from how much and whereeach vehicle is driven, and from driver selectionprocedures. For example, Rocky Mountaindoubles see much more off-interstate use thanother LCVs, and their drivers are less carefullyscreened than operators of turnpike doubles andtriples. Triples operators appear to be the mostcarefully screened; it is not unusual for acompany to require several years of accident-free doubles driving before allowing a driver tooperate triples. Comparing inherent safety andvehicle handling characteristics is quite differentthan comparing how safely the vehicles areoperated under present circumstances.

The lack of good data has hampered effortsto evaluate LCV accident experience.Researchers estimate that 1 billion vehicle-milesof travel would be required for reliably detectinga 10- to 20-percent difference in accident ratesamong different configurations under “clean”conditions (stable fleet composition, reliabledata) .33 Such data are simply not available.Moreover, the task of acquiring enough data isdaunting, because each LCV configuration hasunique properties dependent on such variousfactors as wind, road geometry, choice ofhitching mechanism, tire and suspensionproperties, trailer wheelbases, and trailer loading.

report, October 1988, pp. 10-17.32 u s Department of Transportation, Federal. .Highway Administration, Longer CombinationVehicle Operations in Western States (Washington,DC: October 1986), pp. 11-13-11-18.33 Gordon A. Sparks, Department Of CivilEngineering, University of Saskatchewan, et al.,“Safety Experience of Large Trucks: An Analysis

48

STATE PROGRAMS

State operating restrictions and permitpractices for LCVs and other types of heavyvehicles vary widely because of the manydifferent types of LCVs and the diverse ways andlocations in which they are used. Most truckingoperations are regional, and State highwayofficials, even in neighboring States, do not haveuniform permitting requirements. For example, inUtah motor carriers must designate their LCVroutes and have their safety programs certified,including guarantees that all LCV drivers aretested in accordance with Federal law. The testsat a minimum must include left-hand and right-hand turns, entering and exiting highways,operation in traffic, and operation on grades.Many, but not all, States and toll authorities thatallow LCVs perform engineering evaluations todetermine the impact on infrastructure, conductdemonstrations with test vehicles, and limitoperations to selected carriers before authorizingoperations by other qualified companies.34

Unstandard Standards

Fourteen States allow the operation ofoverweight vehicles35 on Interstate without aspecial permit. Most of these States allow higheraxle weights than permitted by Federal law,although Michigan and New Mexico both allow aGVW greater than the 80,000 Ibs. Federal limit.Some States also allow single and tandem axleweights to exceed the Federal limit. In addition,States do not always apply Federal regulations tonon-lnterstates. The maximum GVW on somenon-lnterstates ranges from 73,280 Ibs. in Illinois,Minnesota, and Missouri to 154,000 Ibs. inMichigan.36 Montana, Nevada, North Dakota,and Wyoming permit LCVs on the entire Statehighway network, while some other Statesrestrict LCVs to a portion of the Interstatenetwork. 37 Similarly, designated LCV highwaysmay 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 theSecond International Symposium on Heavy VehicleWeights and Dimensions, Kelowna, BritishColumbia, 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. (Thistable is revised every 6 months, with the nextupdate scheduled for July 1991. Because Statelaws can change frequently, some informationmay be slightly outdated.)

The lack of consistent requirements acrossState boundaries is an obstacle to freer interstatetransport that many would like to see addressed,and as a result of State and industry efforts,38

some uniformity has been achieved in westernStates in laws governing LCV equipment andoperations. However, this is less true for specialpermits, fees, and driver qualifications, such asminimum age and operating experience.Generally, States issue operating permits tocarriers (not individuals) and require them tocertify minimum levels of driver experience,insurance coverage, and vehicle safety andinspection standards. Typically, violations ofpermit conditions result in temporary suspensionof the permit and removal of the individual tractorfrom operation. Carrier use of other LCV units,even by the driver of the suspended vehicle, isnot necessarily prohibited. LCV driverexperience and training requirements are whereStates differ the most from Federal regulationsand each other. Although numerous safetystudies have concluded that drivers less than25 years of age have the highest accident rate,minimum age requirements for LCV driversare the same as or below the Federal limit of21 years of age in all but one State.

HUMAN FACTORS

As stated earlier, LCVs’ relatively safeoperating history is due in large part to the driverselection and training practices of the companiesusing them. It is not uncommon for a companyto require accident-free driving before allowing adriver to operate an LCV.

Training

Training for companies with the safest LCVoperating records includes an extensive on-the-road component. These operators believe thatexperience is essential in teaching drivers how tooperate LCVs safely. Companies operating LCVs

36 ‘l’’ransportation Research Board, oPo cit* ~

footnote 9, pp. 45-47.3 7 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 TRAILINGCOMBINATIONS

TRAILING

STRAIGHT UNITS UNITS *STRAIGHT

TRUCKS TRACTOR- TRACTOR- SEMl- TRUCKSSEMl- TWIN-

TRACTOR- TRACTOR- SEMI-TRAILER 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 28.5D 40 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 3N N 2 8 6 0N N 6 0N N A N N 5 3N N A N N

HAWAll 4 0 N S N S N S N S 4 0 6 0 65 N S N S

IDAHO 4 0 0 0 4 8 6 1G G 4 0 0 0 4 8 6 1G G

ILLINOIS 4 2 G G 5 3G

28.5 4 2 G G 5 3G

28.5

INDIANA 36 0 0 5 3H H

28.5 3 6 0 0 5 3HH

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 8B 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 8E E 2 8 . 5EE

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 5Y

4 0 0 0 53 6 5Y

NEVADA 4 0 0 0 5 3T

2 8 . 5 T 4 0 0 T O T

4 8T 2 8 . 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 0A A

6 0 4 5A 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 5U 7 5U

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


HEIGHT W I D T HW E I G H T

(1 ,000 POUNDS)

(FEET) (INCHES) SINGLE AXLE TANDEM AXLE GROSS VEHICLEWEIGHT 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 6W 3 6w 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 0E

18 3 4E

32 8 0E

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 0V 8 0V

MISSOURI 1 4K 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


%

52



HEIGHT W I D T HW E I G H T

(1 ,000 POUNDS)

(FEET) (INCHES) SINGLE AXLE TANDEM AXLE GROSS VEHIClEWEIGHT 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 2 2 . 4Z 2 2 . 4Z 36Z 34Z 80 8 0

RHODE ISLAND 13.5 102 102 22.4 22.4 4 4R R 4 4R R 8 0 8 0

SOUTH CAROLINA 13.5 102 9 6 2 0 22 3 5 . 2W 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

T E X A S 13.5 102 102 2 0 2 0 3 4 3 4 8 0 8 0

U T A 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 5D 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 andtandem, 36,000 Ibs , if GVW exceeds 73.280 Ibs., single axle may not exceed20,000 Ibs and tandem 34,000 Ibs

Tractor-semitrailer combo. 60’ If semitrailer IS 45’ or less Tractor-semitrailercombo. 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 notover 60’

48’ 1st semltraller, 40’ 2nd trailer, but combined length of the two may not exceed80’, 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 combinationsallowed on state dewgnated routes only

Provided distance between klngpln and center of rearmost axle group IS 41 feet orless

Comblnatlon of trailers can be 61 feet including tongue, or 75 feet overall

Klngpln to rearmost axle cannot exceed 405 feet, If the semitrai ler wasmanufactured before January 1, 1985, the kingpin to rearmost axle dmtance shallnot exceed 42 feet 6 Inches A semltraller, r e g a r d l e s s o f w h e n It w a smanufactured, that IS longer than 48 feet 6 Inches and that has a distance betweenthe klngpln and rearmost axle of 43 feet or less may be operated on the Interstatesvstem 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 axleweight 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 thesemnra!ler (or trader) length Ilmlt exceeds 48 feet, the dmtance between theklngpln and the rearmost axle or a point midway between the two rear axles, Ifthe 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 reartandem on trailer or center of rearmost axle In the case of a single axle or “stretchtandem” 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 exceed405 feet + 5 feel

Eff 4-1 91 decreased to 34,000 Ibs

53

point to a number of other factors contributing tosafe driver performance. For example, theirdrivers often operate close to home and spend amajority of their nights at home. As aconsequence, drivers are familiar with the routesthey travel, and management supervision ispresent at both origin and destination.

One trucking company contends that itsdriver training programs are analogous to thoseof an airline;3g each vehicle has uniquecharacteristics, and drivers need specializedtraining for each configuration just as airlinepilots need to log hours in different types ofaircraft. However, such a claim overlooks thefact that training requirements and standards foraircraft pilots are set by the Federal Government.No special Federal standards or requirementsexist for truck drivers of any type of heavyvehicle, including LCVs. Development ofFederal driver standards and rigorous Federaldriver training requirements for heavy vehicledrivers is overdue and should be a top priorityfor DOT40*

Should LCVs be more widely allowed, anumber of safe operating practices coulddisappear because the vehicles would operateon a far broader scale. Without adequateequipment, driver training, and otherrequirements, typical LCV operating practicesare likely to resemble western doublesoperations, for which many drivers receivelittle or no special training.4’

Driver Error

Heavy vehicle drivers must continuouslyprocess and react to a variety of information, andeven momentary lapses in concentration cancause an accident. Human error is involved inover 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 andTransportation Officials have promoted uniform sizeand weight standards with some success.3 9 J e r r y Hughes, Roadway Express, 1nc Q $presentation at Professional Truck Driver Instituteof America public forum, Sacramento, CA, Feb. 26,1991.~ office of Technology Assessment, op. cit.,footnote 1, pp. 12-13.4 1 National TrmSpor~tion Safety Bcmd, oP. cit. ~

drivers: attitude, coordination, vision, caution,and fatigue associated with stress, exhaustion, orsleep deprivation.

However, the mental demands of driving candiffer among different vehicle types andcharacteristics. Drivers of doubles and triplesreport greater tiredness after 8-hour hauling setsthan they do with conventional tractor-semitrailers.43Though noise and cab vibrationmay contribute more directly to fatigue and arecommon to all truck configurations, theadditional mental strain from driving multiunitcombinations probably stems from concernsabout trailer sway and instability caused by agreater number of articulation points oncombinations hitched together by A-dollies.Drivers contacted by OTA verify the additionaldriver concerns from driving multitrailercombinations hooked by conventional A-dollies.44 Using a double-drawbar dollyincreases driver confidence and decreasesmental strain and fatigue. Testing and study areneeded to determine the possibly differingeffects on drivers of various combinationlengths, hitching mechanisms, and number oftrailing units. Ongoing FHWA/industry fatiguestudies could be expanded in scope to providevaluable driver fatigue comparisons betweenwestern doubles and conventional tractor-semitrailers.

Sharing the Road With Motorists

Since trucks share the highways with themotoring public, attention to the interactionbetween automobiles, trucks, and drivers iscrucial to any examination of LCV issues. Suchconcerns as roadway visibility and behavior ofnearby passing and oncoming traffic areparticularly acute because of the wide disparity inscale between LCVs, automobiles, andmotorcycles. (Trucks can be four to six times aslong 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 IndependentDrivers Association, personal communication,March 1991; and truck driver interviews, uneditedfootage of Saskatchewan LCV operators producedby University of Michigan Transportation Research

54

block motorists’ view of other traffic and signs, aphenomenon that would likely worsen withgreater use of longer vehicles.45 Even minortrailer sway concerns motorists, who associate itwith the possibility of loss of control of the truck.The continuous small steering correctionsemployed by some drivers to stay in a traffic lanecan cause a wave action down through thevehicle, which can be augmented by curves inthe road, uneven pavement, and wind. Eventhough such motions may not result ininstability, - the impact on motorists’ attention toother driving tasks and general behavior has notbeen rigorously examined.

Surveys of automobile drivers show almostuniversal opposition to any increased use oflonger trucks and indicate that the trucks alreadyon the road overwhelm motorists. 47 Suchconcerns will become increasingly important inthe coming decades, particularly as thepopulation of older drivers grows. A substantialportion of older drivers shows poorer perceptualcapabilities--such as reaction time, peripheralvision, sharpness of vision, decisionmaking--thanthe rest of the driving public. In addition,research and survey and accident data suggestthat older drivers have relatively more difficultyinteracting with trucks and have the strongestnegative reactions to them.a

INFRASTRUCTURE IMPACTS

Although LCVs can carry heavier loads thanconventional trucks, recent studies by theTransportation Research Board and otherorganizations find that LCVs cause lesspavement damage per unit of freight moved.This is because they have more axles over whichthe weight is distributed and because fewer tripsare necessary to move the same amount offreight. An industry study4g estimates the annual

Institute under NHTSA contract, 1991; and NickPatch, Mayflower Eli te Fleet , personalcommunication, 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 ofmembers, 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 ona national basis and significant amounts of freightshifted from conventional trucks to LCVs. Such ashift would occur almost exclusively in States notnow allowing LCVs. Precise impact estimatesare difficult because they depend greatly ontraffic shifts, vehicle mixes, tires and suspensionsused, and other factors.

Although pavement damage might decrease,highway tax payments used to maintain andrepair pavements would also decrease if freightshifts from conventional trucks to LCVs. FHWAfinds that in general, State permit fees foroverweight vehicles do not cover the cost ofadministration and highway damage.50 Inaddition, the reality of lax weight enforcement onthe highways and more (often overweight)marine containers traveling on the road networkcould outweigh any pavement benefits whereturnpike doubles are allowed to operate fromports.

The generally poorer offtracking of LCVs(except for triple combinations, as describedearlier in this chapter), longer length, and greatergross weight point to a need for redesign andreconstruction of significant portions of the roadswhere they are used, especially interchanges andbridges. Lane widening, increased turning radii,and provision of climbing/passing lanes will benecessary in some areas to accommodatelonger vehicles with poorer off tracking orclimbing ability.

Longer Buses

A legislative proposal by the intercity busindustry seeking permission for nationwideoperations of 45-foot over-the-road motorcoaches is discussed in box 3-A. Coachmanufacturers claim that the turning radius oftheir proposed design is within the design limitsof current highways.

Bridges

For States to allow LCV operations andcomply with the Bridge Formula as well wouldmean upgrading many bridges to higher design

@ The Urban Institute, ‘Pavement and BridgeImpacts of Longer Combination Vehicles, ” studyprepared 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 ofgrandfather provisions unique to intercity buses. States that permitted 45-foot transit buses prior to 1956were allowed to approve 45-foot intercity buses as well. Currently, 45-foot coaches can be operated legallyin 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 coachcarries 46 or 47 passengers and has 319 cubic feet of baggage space. A similarly equipped 45-foot coachcarries 55 passengers, a 20-percent improvement, and has 410 cubic feet for baggage, a 29-percentimprovement. One company estimates that this longer vehicle could save 32 million bus-miles each year and5.5 million gallons of fuel.1

No data exist to show whether the 12-percent greater length of 45-foot coaches over 40-foot coachesbrings about significant changes in safety and handling, although the manufacturer’s computer modelsindicate it does not. Bus accident data do not include vehicle length, so present 45-foot coach operationscannot be compared with other intercity bus operations. Some, but not all, 45-foot coaches have turningradius, rear swingout, and axle weight distribution characteristics that are equivalent to those of 40-footcoaches and within existing Federal and State limitations. Both transit and intercity buses, when fullyloaded, 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, April1991.

2 Jo~ pawn, dirW~r of re~rch, western Highway kti$Ute, personal communimtion, May 8! 19919————— — — .——— .—-.— .—— —

loads or replacing Ioad deficient bridges. Evenbridges not requiring immediate strengtheningcould impose an indirect cost because ofreduced service life. A trucking industry study,51

using a similar methodology to that used in theTRB studies, found total bridge costs (notincluding user costs associated with time delayand additional fuel consumed) associated withnational use of LCVs to be on the order of $6billion.52

Other subsequent studies on the rural53 andurban bridge54 networks used a similar TRBmethodology, 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 adifferent bridge rating based on the results of asurvey of 49 State highway agencies incalculating bridge replacement costs .55Estimates for the total bridge costs on the ruraland urban Interstate system using thismethodology are on the order of $30 billion,comprised of $14 billion replacement costs (1989prices) and $16 billion associated user-bornecosts. Bridge impact estimates of the ability tocarry LCVs are sensitive to how highwayagencies rate their bridges’ condition, truck loadsand configurations, and construction andmaterial costs. If user borne-costs areconsidered to reflect total costs m o r e

c o m p l e t e l y , t h e v a l u e o f t i m e a n d a d d i t i o n a l f u e l

c o n s u m e d m u s t b e i n c l u d e d , a n d t h e f i n a l t o t a l

c a n d o u b l e o r i g i n a l r e p l a c e m e n t c o s t e s t i m a t e s .

a discount rate of 7 percent and infinite term foramortizing capital costs were assumed in order to

56

Costs for bridges are particularly importantbecause these improvements must be madebefore heavy trucks are allowed to travel onthem and require up- f ront publ icexpendi tures . Changes in fundingmechanisms are also needed to reflect moreaccurately the true infrastructure costsincurred by heavy trucks and pay fornecessary bridge and road maintenance.Because of these concerns, AASHTO has taken astrong stand against any efforts to allow wideruse of LCVs, maintaining that most of theNation’s highways have yet to be reconfigured tostandards that accommodate the increases thatoccurred during the 1980s in truck sizes andweights.=

ECONOMIC IMPACTS

The economic impacts of a wider LCVnetwork depend on many factors: which andhow many States allow them, future fuel pricesand tax rates, the cost and extent ofinfrastructure upgrades, and responses fromvarious sectors of the trucking, and railroadindustries, and many others. Thus, it isimpossible to make reliable predictions of theeconomic impacts of greater LCV use.

However, some studies have suggested57

that allowing LCVs on a national scale wouldprobably lead to productivity benefits for thetrucking industry and the shippers it serves,perhaps on the order of $2 to $4 billion annually,because increased weights and dimensionswould enable a given amount of freight to becarried in fewer trips, reducing the per ton-milecost of each movement. For example, theaddition of a single 28-foot trailer to a double 28-foot combination allows 50 percent more productto be hauled at little additional cost and increasesflexibility. In addition to the pavement and bridgeimpacts discussed earlier, other predictedimpacts, discussed later, include changes in

estimate an annual cost. OTA converted annualcosts to total costs.53 Jose Weissmann and Rob Harrison, TexasResearch and Development Foundation, “TheImpact of Turnpike Doubles and Triple 28s on theRural Interstate Bridge Network, ” paper presented atthe 70th Annual Meeting of the TransportationResearch Board, Washington, DC, January 1991.54 Rob Harrison and Jose Weissmann, TexasResearch and Development Foundation, “Urban

trucking operations, shifts in freight traffic fromrail to trucking, and provision of staging areas.Box 3-B describes the effects that changing truckweight restrictions can have on a State’seconomic development.

LCVs Advocates

Many shippers support wider use of LCV.Generally, long-haul carriers and some short-haulcarriers with high freight volumes betweenendpoints will benefit the most from turnpikedoubles and triples. Short-haul carriers, carriersserving lowdensity freight corridors, and carrierswith proportionately greater operations on urbanstreets will benefit less from LCVs since they areless able to capitalize on the economies thesevehicles afford. Each configuration is attractiveto various types of carriers.

Truckers most enthusiastic about wider use oftriples tend to be large parcel and nationwideLess than Truckload (LTL) carriers. They wouldlike to be able to operate more efficiently overlong hauls (or short hauls with high volumes offreight) in more parts of the country. Many ofthese carriers are already set up to use westerndoubles for their Iinehaul movements, and theability to operate triples in all States wouldprobably lead to substantial savings for thesecompanies. Regional LTL carriers, which useboth western doubles and conventionalsemitrailers for their Iinehaul operations, couldbenefit from either triples or turnpike doubles.

Only some truckload (TL) carriers areenthusiastic about LCVs, because many operateon already slender profit margins. Moreover, TLrates are likely to drop more than LTL rates ifwider LCV use is allowed, since LTL rates includepickup and delivery charges and tend to be morecompetitive due to the smaller shipmentsinvolved. General commodity TL carriers faceadditional hurdles in taking advantage of LCVsbecause few serve a pair of shippers (one ateach endpoint) that can consistently offerbalanced freight in both directions.Consequently, TL movements tend to be treatedon a one-by-one basis with a driver moving atruckload to a receiving dock and then beingrouted elsewhere for the next load.

Efficient use of turnpike doubles for TLmovements would require a reorganization intopickup and delivery operations (using single

trailers) and Iinehaul operations between stagingareas (using the doubles) that large fleets wouldbe most likely to afford. Small TL carriers wouldbe less likely to take advantage of the Ionghaulefficiency of turnpike doubles and could suffer inan environment where large firms are able tooperate more efficiently over long-haulcorridors. =

Single commodity TL carriers could benefitfrom LCVs. Many of these operations are local,and some might need to operate extensively offthe Interstate, where the greater maneuverabilityof triples would be useful. Carriers that makeproportionately greater use of Interstate wouldprobably opt for the greater volume of turnpikedoubles.

Both weigh-out and cube-out traffic willbenefit from more LCVS.59 Carriers of bulkcommodities, such as chemicals, petroleumproducts, wood pulp, and gravel, are affectedmainly by weight restrictions, and weigh outbefore they cube out. Consequently, turnpikedoubles, which can carry the greatest weight,would be likely to see more bulk use. LTLcarriers are more likely to need the flexibility oftriples. It is unclear how rapidly truckingcompanies would adapt to any changes in sizeand weight restrictions. Some, especially largecarriers, would simply couple one more trailer toexisting combinations, thereby reapingconsiderable productivity benefits while incurringfew capital investment costs. Others would buynew equipment immediately, while some wouldwait for existing equipment to wear out. Noanalysis to date has considered the costs tocompanies that would result from technologyrequirements or new safety and driver trainingprograms.

LCV Opponents

As noted above, not all trucking companieswill benefit from wider use of LCVs. Since someovercapacity still exists in both the TL and LTLsectors, weaker companies now struggling to

Interstate Bridges: Turnpike Doubles and Triple 28Costs, ” unpublished report, May 1991.55 Rob Harrison et al., Texas Research and

Development Foundation, “Operating Rating orInventory Rating: A Multi-Billion DollarDifference, ” unpublished report, February 1991.56 Hal Rives, president, American Association ‘f

make a profit would be unlikely to survive if LCVswere widely permitted. Small TL firms, lackingthe capital, traffic volumes, and sophisticatedmanagement systems needed to exploit LCVs,will lose out to larger, better financed TLcompetitors, who will be in a position to convertmore quickly to LCVs.m Other small companiesand independents are likely to suffer as well,since they cannot capitalize on economies ofscale to purchase equipment.61 On grounds ofboth employment and safety, the Teamstersoppose any expansion of LCVs beyond thoseStates where they are presently allowed.Experience of Teamster locals in those Statesconvinces the Union that those LCVs could notbe operated as safely in areas with more traffic.62

Railroads are concerned about LCVs becauseof a loss of traffic due to lower trucking costs andrates as well as a potential loss of revenue ontraffic for which they would have to lower theirrates to meet increased trucking competition.These concerns are particularly acute forrailroads in truck competitive markets, such aslumber, chemicals, automobiles, and pulp andfood products as well as intermodal containertraffic, where significant freight diversion toturnpike doubles can be expected in all regionsof the country. Though LTL traffic is not a largeportion of overall railroad business, their LTLoperations would also be affected, primarily bytriples. Rail corridors sensitive to increased useof triples include Chicago, St. Louis, Houston,and Kansas City to the Pacific Northwest andChicago to Philadelphia. Because they allowcombining TL and LTL traffic, Rocky Mountaindoubles might reduce rates somewhat, sincehigher revenue from the 28-foot (LTL) trailerwould permit a lower rate for the 48-foot (TL)trailer.63

Contrary to assertions that most opposition toLCVs has been orchestrated by their industry

State Highway and Transportation Officials, writtencommunication with six Senators and Congressmen,Feb. 19, 1991.57 The Trucking Research Institute has sponsoredresearch on potential longer combination vehicleproductivity benefits and infrastructure costs, andthe Transportation Research Board has conductedstudies on heavier (but not longer) trucks and Turnertrucks.58 paul Robe r t s , “The Politics of LongerCombination 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 trucksize and weight regulations could affect economic development. Wyoming is highly dependent on trucktransportation, but unlike most western States, did not qualify for the grandfather clause allowing trucks tooperate on Intestates beyond the 80,000 lbs, gross weight limit. According to the study, because trucks inother States could haul more cargo, their transportation costs were significantly lower, making Wyomingproducts more expensive in comparison. Moreover, some vehicles bypassed the State in favor ofneighboring States that permitted heavier vehicles. (To determine the effect of the ban on truckingproductivity, the Wyoming State Highway Departmmt had earlier gained permission from the FederalGovernment 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 thanunder previous conditions, saving an estimated 700,000 gallons of feul. Reductions in tranportation costswere observed for several commodities, and some Wyoming firms opened new markets because they couldcompete 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 weighinggreater than 80,000 lbs. on the Interstate system through December 31, 1991, was included in a Federalappropriations bill.2

1 Wyoting State Highway Department, “The Wyoming Weight Study: Increasing the GKOSS VehicleWeights on Wyoming Interstate Highways, w unpublished report, January 1988.

2 ~b~ic ~W 101-56.

opponents , publ ic opin ion surveys and O T A s t a f finterviews show an overwhelmingly negativepublic reaction to increasing truck dimensions.64

Moreover, in recent trucking industry surveys, 76percent of the executives from TL carriers polledindicated they would not be willing to tradehigher user taxes for a size increase.65

Professional truck drivers felt triples and turnpikedoubles were less safe than conventional tractor-trailer combinations by over 80 percent, and 60percent said they would feel less safe sharing theroad 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 weighsout when the opposite occurs.GO ‘Longer Combination Vehicles: A TruckingD i saster, “ Competitive Policy Reporter,AAR/Intermodal Policy Division Report, vol. 2,No. 5, Mar. 15, 1991.6 1 Jim Johnston, owner-operator Indepemknt

Drivers Association, Inc., personal communication,

were operated everywhere. (However, morethan 90 percent of the drivers interviewedindicated they had never driven an LCV.)66

CONCLUSIONS

The number and variety of State grandfatherclauses and permit programs governing longer,heavy trucks make clear that the United Statesdoes not have uniform truck size and weightrequirements, even on Interstate highways.Some State officials contend that the FederalGovernment has “dropped the ball” on theissue,67 and that States do not have adequateresources to ensure that their permittingprograms are sufficient to guarantee highwaysafety.

Although not comprehensive, existingaccident data do indicate that LCVs are operatedsafely in those States that allow them underspecial permit restrictions. These generallyinclude specifications of road type, climate, time-

60

of-day restrictions, driver qualification, loading,hill-climbing ability, and maximum speed. SuchState permit programs, when enforced, havebeen a key ingredient in promoting the safety ofLCV operations to date. The success of thesepermitting programs raises the possibility ofdeveloping Federal safety requirements,especially for driver training, for westerndouble and conventional tractor-traileroperations, since they share many, but not all,of the operating difficulties of LCVs andaccount for over 99 percent of all tractor-traileraccidents.

Being able to use LCVs on a wider networkwould bring productivity benefits to a number ofmotor carriers and could promote economicdevelopment in some States. However, manyStates are not enthusiastic about having moreLCVs on their roads and would like the FederalGovernment to take a more active role in curbingproliferation of LCV operations.68 Moreover, thetrucking industry is not unanimous in its supportof LCVs. Each configuration is suited to differentindustry segments, and some sectors do notfavor any changes in the types of vehiclesallowed to operate. The benefits of anychanges to Federal size and weight laws willaccrue to different industry sectors to varyingdegrees. Some operations, primarily owner-operators and other small outfits, are likely tolose market share if wider use of LCVs ispermitted, and they vigorously oppose thisidea.69 Parcel and nationwide LTL carriers

would use triples, large TL carriers would useturnpike doubles, and some regional LTL carrierscould use either configuration.

While LCVs promote increased productivityand fuel efficiency for trucking companies, widerLCV use is likely to divert some rail traffic totrucks, reducing the overall fuel efficiency of thefreight transportation system, under mostcircumstances. Moreover, permits foroverweight vehicles generally do not cover thecost of administration and highway damage, andestimates of the total costs to upgrade bridges toaccommodate LCVs range from a low of $6

Mar. 22, 1991.62 Vernon McDougal, Safety and Health Division,International Brotherhood of Teamsters, personalcommunication, Apr. 2, 1991.63 Association of American Railroads officials,

personal communications, Feb. 13, 1991.

billion up to at least $14 billion. When broaderpublic interests and costs such as these aretaken into account, they may outweigh theproductivity benefits (estimated at $2 to $4 billionannually) to the industry.

Accident Data

Accident data are insufficient to evaluatethe safety impacts of wider use of LCVs.Congress may wish to consider requiring DOT todevelop a database for tractor-trailers and LCVsthat includes travel data by type of road, roadclass, geographical data, type of truck (includinglength of units, speed restrictions, and loadingcondition), and fatal and nonfatal truck accidents.A collaborative effort for information gatheringbetween NHTSA, the Office of Motor Carriersin FHWA, and the States would be essential.In the future, information from such adatabase could help DOT develop guidelinesfor special LCV permitting and for determiningroutes based on highway geometry, trafficflow, bridge characteristics, traffic densities,vehicle mixes, and grades.

Federal Safety Requirements

In 1988, OTA suggested that Congressconsider Federal training standards andrequirements for tractor-trailer drivers.Information gathered since indicates that manycompanies take no steps to prepare drivers forthe transition between conventional tractor-semitrailers and vehicles requiring more skill(such as western doubles and LCVs). Therelationship between rearward amplification andtrailer sway on multiunit combinations andmental strain and fatigue on drivers is not clearand needs empirical testing. Current FHWAdriver fatigue research could be expanded toinclude analysis of double- v. single-unitcombinations and provide valuable, preliminaryinsight into LCV driver fatigue and how it mightdiffer between combinations.

Given the current high rate of driver turnoverin some segments of the trucking industry andthe considerable training expenses faced byoperators, the public has a right to expect thatstringent Federal safety equipment and trainingrequirements and stricter operating regulationswill be implemented before any change inFederal policy on LCVs. It is time to address amajor loophole in Federal highway safety

61

programs and for Congress to require DOT todevelop training standards and requirementsfor tractor-trailer and LCV drivers, under theCommercial Drivers’ License program.Although some industry segments remainopposed to Federal standards, acceptance of theconcept has grown substantially over the pastseveral years.70

Performance standards are needed forbraking efficiency (particularly for unloadedvehicles), rearward amplification, rolloverthreshold, minimum grade-climbing ability, low-and high-speed offtracking, steering sensitivity,and vehicle suspension. Congress shouldrequire DOT to develop and implementappropriate studies and inservice fleet testingof safety enhancing technologies on LCVs,including antilock brakes, double-drawbardollies, and sufficiently powerful engines.Vehicles from existing LCV operating fleetscould be used for such a test.

On completion of the appropriate studies andoperational tests, Congress may wish to requireDOT to mandate adequate control measures tomitigate the handling problems and/orinfrastructure impacts of LCVs. The use ofantilock brakes on all axles, double-drawbardollies for trailers less than 40 feet in length, airsuspensions, and automatic slack adjusters ontrailers as well as tractors, or equivalent systems,could be required or encouraged through weightor other incentives. Heavier trailer forwardrequirements should also be mandated toimprove control. Such test programs anddevelopment and implementation of Federalstandards must precede any changes toFederal laws applicable to heavy vehicleoperation to ensure nationwide highwaysafety.

LCVs and Infrastructure Improvements

Each configuration of LCV needs to beconsidered against the sort of uniformperformance standards discussed above. Theinfrastructure implications of turnpike doublesare quite different than those of triples. Thesafety concerns of triples could be addressed bytechnologies identified in this paper, whereas theinfrastructure demands of turnpike doublesinvolve upgrading substantial portions of thehighway network. Taxes and fees for heavytrucks must be set at levels adequate in orderto cover their impact on the infrastructure.

64 me 1$)89 Legislative Survey Composite Reportprepared by the American Automobile Association’s(AAA) Department of Market Analysis andResearch found that 89 percent of AAA members

Automobile Drivers and LCVs

The overwhelming opposition of motoriststo large, heavy trucks is, and should continueto be, a major concern for the truckingindustry. It is possible that motorists’discomfort with even conventional truckconfigurations is so great that the industry willbe unable to counter the strong negativepublic reaction to longer ones. Since the issueof the public’s reactions to longer trucks hasdisturbed the industry in the recent past, truckingcompanies may want to weigh the costs ingoodwill of proposed productivity improvements.

Just as truck drivers need adequate specialinstruction in operating their equipment safely inmixed truck and car traffic, automobile driversneed special instruction in sharing the road withtrucks. Congress could consider requiring DOTto develop guidelines on this for automobiledriver training courses and instruction materials,in cooperation with State motor vehicleadministrators.

are strongly opposed to increasing truck lengths. A1990 poll conducted by the Frederick/SchneidersInc. yielded similar results.65 Memorandum of Interstate Truckload CarriersConference, Feb. 11, 1991.66 WA Study of the operating Practices of Extm-

Long Vehicles, ” Transportation Research andMarketing, 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”6 9 Jim J o h n s t o n , executive d irector , OWner-

Operators Independent Drivers Association, Inc.,personal communication, May 3, 1991; and RitaBontz, Independent Truck Drivers Association,personal communication, May 7, 1991.7 0 Jim J o h n s t o n , owner-operators Independent

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 Statematching share matching share matching share matching shareat 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 . 20.90.94.5

11.13.2

17.21.02.46.06.70.90.99.95.76.36.26.87.02.14.2

19.37.54.34.8

13.4

$ 9 . 71.11.16.0

14.84.2

23.01.33.28.08.91.21.1

13.17.68.48.39.19.32.85.6

25.710.0

5.76.4

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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.84.20.91.9

15.31.1

34.16.91.2

10.47.32.0

30.70.92.61.68.7

12.90.91.97.78.59.55.80.9

2.45.71.12.5

20.41.5

45.49.21.6

13.99.72.6

41.01.13.52.2

11.617.2

1.12.5

10.211.312.67.81.1

339.7 452.9

Table A-2-States Receiving Matching Share Reductions for Federal Lands and ProposedLow-Density Bonuses

Federal lands Proposed Federal iands Proposedmatching 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 30.2Arizona . . . . . . . . . . 9.9 no 9.9 New Mexico . . . . . . 4.3 34 38.3California . . . . . . . . 21.4 no 21.4 North Dakota . . . . . no 26 26.0Colorado . . . . . . . . . 3.2 no 3.2 Oregon . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 no 4.5Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 0.5 South Dakota . . . . . 1.2 26 27.2Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.7 24 30.7 Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7 20 25.7Montana . . . . . . . . . 2.3 35 37.3 Washington . . . . . . . 1.9 no 1.9Nebraska . . . . . . . . no 24 24.0 Wyoming . . . . . . . . . 3.8 28 31.8The State matching share requirements for major Federal highway programs are reduced for those 14 States with large Federal land holdings. The reduc-

tions 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

Moving Ahead: 1991 Surface Transportation Legislation

Documents

Transcript of Moving Ahead: 1991 Surface Transportation Legislation