Government Documents Reveal Serious Safety Consequences of Over Heavy Trucks

Do Not Allow Dangerous Loads on Interstate Highways

STOP Unsafe Truck Weight Exemptions in Maine and Vermont

Government Documents Reveal Serious Safety Consequences

to Motorists and Infrastructure

Records Released Under the Freedom of Information Act Reveal Federal Highway Administration Concerns

for Public Safety and Infrastructure Damage from 100,000 Pound Six-Axle Truck Pilot Program

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Background:

The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010 (enacted on Dec. 16, 2009) included a special interest provision that authorized a one-year Pilot Program for 100,000 lb. trucks on 250 miles of Interstate highways normally limited to the federal 80,000 pound weight limit, in Maine and Vermont.  The Act required the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to issue a 6-month progress report and a one-year final report on the Pilot Program.  The Truck Safety Coalition (TSC) filed a Freedom of Access Act (FOAA) request with the Maine Department of Transportation (Maine DOT) and a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the FHWA.  Documents obtained from both the state and federal agencies show serious bridge safety problems, behind-the-scenes coordination between industry and government, and Maine DOT pressure to weaken and mask safety concerns and reach conclusions based on incomplete information.

The Bottom Line:

Information received under the federal FOIA and the Maine FOAA regarding the one-year truck weight exemption, from Dec. 2009 to Dec. 2010, exposes serious safety issues regarding damage to roads and bridges caused by these overly heavy trucks and consequently to the motorists traveling on these compromised roads and bridges.

“FHWA has concluded that the margin of bridge safety is reduced on Maine and Vermont Interstate Highways where the heavier vehicles operate.  The use of heavier axle loadings on the Interstate highways in Maine and Vermont will reduce the pavement life, especially with an increase in the number of heavy trucks and the allowance for axle loadings that exceed current federal standards.” (“Briefing for the Secretary” and “Summary Sheet”)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Congress Should Review the Final FHWA Pilot Program Report:

Some Members of the Maine and Vermont Congressional Delegations are once again pushing for an exemption for their states from federal truck weight limits; however, this time they are asking for another exemption before even seeing the results and considering the implications of the 2010 exemption since the one-year report from FHWA required by Congress has not been released to Congress or the public.

It would irresponsible for Congress to consider more special interest exemptions before at least receiving and reviewing the studies that Congress itself required.  Even after the studies are reviewed, according to the FHWA’s 6-Month Report to Congress, “It may take many years before any measurable impacts to the bridges can be physically observed.  A subsequent report required by the Congress on the 1-year Vermont pilot program will expand this examination to include effects on ‘highway safety, bridge and road durability, commerce, truck volumes, and energy use within the State of Vermont.’” (“Maine and Vermont Interstate Highway Heavy Truck Pilot Program 6-Month Report” (hereinafter 6-Month Report), p.3)

FHWA FOUND SERIOUS SAFETY ISSUES

“There is absolutely no question that these trucks will produce stresses significantly higher than the 80 kip truck.” (“A Side-by-Side Analysis of Vermont’s Interstate Bridges,” FHWA, (hereinafter FHWA Analysis), p.5)

“…Vermont’s interstate bridges were not designed for 99,000 lbs. trucks. This analysis shows that a significant number of bridges will have their factor of safety reduced significantly.”  (FHWA Analysis, p.5)

“Of general concern to DOT is the shift away from bridge protection weight limits (Federal Bridge Formula B) in the pilot program States.  The pilot programs allow vehicles that do not meet statutory bridge protection weight limitations to operate on Maine and Vermont Interstate highways…” (FHWA 6-Month Report, p.6)

“…we reduce a factor of safety with 100K trucks…why are these bridges safe if they were built before anyone was thinking of 100K trucks?  This is a lingering question…” (4/6/10 e-mail from FHWA Team Leader, Truck Size & Weight, Freight Technology & Operations)

“ [FHWA official] and I have discussed this at some length.  He and I, and I am certain all bridge engineers, agree that the 100kip truck reduces the factor of safety on any bridge relative to the 80 kip truck, regardless of the bridge rating. The question, of course, is: Does this reduction jeopardize the traveling public…I think [FHWA official] and I, and I should not really speak for him, are uncomfortable with this reduction for some of Maine’s bridges…Lastly, you raised the issue of the bridges currently rated at HS17.5 or lower. These should be of great concern…About 15% of the Maine interstate bridges are rated this low.  The 100 kip truck causes an overstress of about 25 to 40% in these bridges.” (4/7/10 email from FHWA Office of Transportation Policy Studies)

“I agree with everything that [FHWA official] has said. I am also not comfortable with the reduction in safety…The 6 month initial period should have been enough time to screen the bridge inventory and indentify the ‘critical’ bridges and perform detailed load rating analysis with the 3S3 truck…Updating a detailed load rating on a bridge only takes a few hours for most typical bridges.  Why hasn’t this been done?” (4/7/10 email from FHWA official responding to another FHWA official’s e-mail)

“If one assumes that greater than a ten percent ‘overstress’…is unacceptable, then these results show that every 100,000 lbs. truck is a problem.” [Bold and italics in original.] “…the results should cause prudent bridge engineers some concern.”   “If the operating ratings are correct, these results indicate that, for the most part, Maine’s interstate bridges can accommodate the occasional 100,000 lbs. truck [bold and italics in original]…I feel that the operating rating reflects an unacceptable reduction of the factor of safety contain in the inventory rating and therefore it would not be prudent to allow unlimited numbers of these heavier trucks.”  “Conclusions: There is absolutely no question that these trucks will produce stresses significantly higher than the 80 kip truck…most bridges in Maine are steel bridges, which are prone to fatigue problems, especially in the light of large amounts of salt used to melt snow in the winter…Relatively large factors of safety are inherent in bridge design, and Maine’s interstate bridges were not designed for 100,000 lbs. trucks.  This analysis shows that a significant number of bridges will have their factor of safety reduced significantly.” (“A Side-By-Side Analysis of Maine’s Interstate Bridges,” FHWA)

MORE WEIGHT MEANS MORE TRUCKS ON HIGHWAYS

One of the major arguments being used to support the weight increase is that it will result in fewer trucks on the roads.  However, just the opposite has happened:

“A preliminary analysis of Vermont weigh-in-motion data shows an 8 percent jump in volume of trucks on both the Interstate route and the corresponding State route.” (6-Month Report, p.17)

“Weigh-in-motion data show gross vehicle weight and axle weights for trucks passing weigh-in-motion stations.  It is interesting to note that the percentage of trucks in that weight category (more than 80,000 lbs. but less than 120,000 lbs.) has not declined on the I-95 Turnpike following the pilot program implementation. …Truck classification sites count the number of trucks passing…for Sidney and Vassalboro, Maine.  These two locations are roughly parallel.  The figure shows…a much larger increase in the number of six-axle tractor semitrailers on the Interstate.”  (6-Month Report, p.13)

TAXPAYERS FORCED TO PAY FOR OVERWEIGHT TRUCKS IN MAINE AND VERMONT

By allowing heavier overweight trucks to use Interstate highways in Maine and Vermont, the Pilot Program will force the cost burden of bridge safety investigations and maintenance, highway pavement repair and the need for more enforcement, including weigh-in-motion sensors, to be shifted to the federal government and all federal taxpayers:

“The FHWA and VTrans are currently increasing the number of weigh-in-motion sensors on I-91 and I-93 in Vermont to more fully estimate pilot program impacts for pavements and bridges.” (6-Month Report, p.17)

“Overstresses should be investigated more rigorously to determine a bridge’s load bearing capabilities.” (6-Month Report, p.18)

“The Maine and Vermont pilot programs have the potential to increase pavement damage… In the long term, heavier vehicles allowed under the Maine and Vermont pilot programs would cause additional pavement damage that could be managed through increased maintenance and possibly increasing pavement thickness where needed.” (6-Month Report, p.5)

“To limit the potential pavement damage, axle loads should be tightly controlled though industry cooperation and increased enforcement.” (6-Month Report, p.5)

“…most bridges in Vermont are steel bridges, which are prone to fatigue and problems, especially in light of large amounts of salt used to melt snow in the winter.  Although fatigue damage can be repaired fairly cheaply if identified early, this puts an extra burden on the state to improve the quality and quantity of inspections.” (FHWA Analysis, p.5)

“Essentially he [FHWA official] is saying it will take the equivalent of another ½ inch pavement on the interstate system to support the additional axle weights…Vermont tells us it will take about 20 years to repave the interstate system with a ½” overlay.” (3/19/10 email from FHWA official)

“The second issue we need to address is the added cost of maintenance, repair, rehab and replacement (if any) due to these larger trucks.  My guess is that if there are several bridges that need replaced due to these trucks, AND if the state has the courage to charge those costs to these trucks, then the cost per truck would be so high that they would return to the 80kip truck.  Of course, we all know that in reality they will do all they can to pass these costs on to auto and smaller truck uses.” (4/7/10 email from FHWA official)

“’FHWA’s latest information shows that of the 197 bridges on Maine’s Interstate System, 36 are functionally obsolete, and 6 are structurally deficient.  In Vermont there are 313 total bridges.  Of those, 95 are functionally obsolete, and 22 are structurally deficient.’  These figures still stand since I have not seen them refuted.” (4/23/10 email from FHWA official)

“…the real effect i[s] that it is in the state’s interest to shift the responsibility of repairing bridge and pavement damage from the State to the Federal government. . . . In my opinion it is the wrong solution.  If there is a safety issue and damage issue on the Maine system, then the solution is to apply Bridge Formula B with an 80 kip [thousand pound] cap to the Maine system.” (“A Side-By-Side Analysis of Maine’s Interstate Bridges,” FHWA)

Maine’s budget for highway spending is facing a shortfall of $720 million over the next two years, according to Bangor Daily News http://www.bangordailynews.com/story/Statewide/Maine-highway-budget-shortfall-estimated-at-720M,158379.

MAINE AND VERMONT DOTs WORK TO MANIPULATE RESULTS TO BE INCLUDED IN 6-MONTH REPORT

Despite efforts by FHWA staff to fairly represent safety issues regarding 100,000 lb. trucks, Maine and Vermont DOT officials continually insisted that the FHWA 6-month progress report reflect unsupported views of state DOTs:

“Gary and I have discussed, and feel that we need to go on offense a little.  Our suggestion is to clearly communicate to [FHWA official] that, if their final Report is one sided and only discusses the negative impacts to the Interstate, that we will issue our own report with the ‘rest of the story’ and distribute it.”  (5/13/10 Chip Getchell, P.E., Maine DOT, Director Asset Services Division, Chief Engineer’s Office)

“There has been considerable emphasis from both of you that trucks exiting the state system and transferring to the interstate system would provide an overall savings to the state…It would be merely speculation on our part to say an overall saving will occur on the transfer.  As we have mentioned before we don’t know the number of heavy trucks that will still need to use the state system for delivery and other access points…Our experts are saying it has too many variables to control and the result would be less than exact.” (5/18/10 email from FHWA official)

“Mention of the coming tradeoff analysis is required in several key places throughout the report’s text so that the reader gains the proper perspective when the report is basically telling them that allowing heavy trucks will cause Interstate damage and will cost the federal government more money…we really need to insist that they be placed in the body of the text…”(5/18/10 from John Zicconi, VT AoT, Director, Planning, Outreach & Community Affairs, in response to FHWA official’s email)

CLOSE GOVERNMENT COLLABORATION WITH TRUCKING SPECIAL INTERESTS BUT NONE WITH PUBLIC OR SAFETY GROUPS

Documents show that FHWA officials drafting the 6 Month Report met with private industry behind closed doors:

Minutes of Jan. 14, 2010 Pilot Study Committee meeting indicate that an employee of Pike Industries, which has been awarded numerous multi-million dollar paving contracts in New England states, and has significant monetary interest in selling more pavement, is contact for two committees preparing 6-month pilot program report.

“My understanding is that you (Robert Elder) [Maine DOT] and Jon McDade [Maine DOT] will be going with me to that meeting.  You are welcome to invite any others that you believe are pertinent to the discussion.  Could you please confirm that we are meeting at the Trucking Association offices at 10am?” (2/14/10 email from FHWA official)

“I had very positive meetings with the Maine Motor Transport Association and the Vermont Truck and Bus Association this past week.  The leadership of both organizations pledged to work very closely with our team and the work groups to put a very successful report together. I'll do some followup with specific individuals on getting members of these organizations connected to the work groups.  Many thanks to Mr. Brian Parke and Mr. Timothy Doyle of the Maine Motor Transport Association for setting aside time to meet with Jonathan McDade, Anna Price and me last Wednesday. Likewise, many thanks to Ed Miller, Roland Bellavance, Ken Ferno and Ed Larson of the Vermont Truck and Bus Association for meeting with [FHWA official], [FHWA official] and me last Thursday.” (2/22/10 email from FHWA official)

“We are gearing up for our DC trip next week…As always, the weight limit extension will be a high priority when we meet with the Congressional delegation.” (4/29/10 email from Tim Doyle, Vice President, Maine Motor Transport Association (MMTA) to Robert Elder, Maine DOT, Director, Office of Freight and Business Personnel)

“I’ll also fill you in on our DC trip last week.” (5/11/10 email from Tim Doyle, MMTA, to Robert Elder, Maine DOT)

We Urge Congress to Act Responsibly:

Do Not Make a Back-Room Deal to Bring Back this Dangerous Special Interest Project that Endangers the Motoring Public and Will Seriously Damage Our Infrastructure