Jump to content

Trucking Execs Urge Senators to Turn Down ‘Twin 33’ Trailers


kscarbel2
 Share

Recommended Posts

Heavy Duty Trucking / June 16, 2015

he top executives of 15 major for-hire carriers are pushing back against a drive on Capitol Hill to legalize the operation of twin 33-ft trailers on highways nationwide.

In a succinct letter addressed to Chairman Thad Cochran (R-MS) and Vice Chairman Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, the heads of 13 truckload and 2 LTL carriers urge committee members to oppose an amendment to the next transportation funding bill that “would force states to accept double 33’ [vs. the current 28’] trailers on all U.S. highways” because it is fraught with “unintended consequences.”

The signatories argue that permitting the longer sets of doubles “would have a negative impact on highway safety, accelerate wear and tear on the nation’s highway system, and make it very difficult for small trucking companies, which are the heart of our industry, to compete.”

Noting that trucking itself is “deeply divided on this issue,” they contend that the amendment has not yet been sufficiently discussed on Capitol Hill. Nonetheless, an identical measure has made it through the House unscathed. But President Obama has already threatened to veto the funding package if it makes it to his desk in the same form that it took in the House.

To help make their case against twin 33s, the writers also point out that the comprehensive size/weight study recently put out by the Dept. of Transportation “concluded that no changes in the relevant truck size and weight laws should be considered at this time.”

The authors close by advsing the Senators that they “would be happy to personally visit with you and your colleagues further, on the reasons why this amendment should not be adopted.”

The signatories of the letter are:

  • Paul Will, CEO, Celadon Trucking, Indianapolis, IN
  • Don Orr, president, Central Transport, Waco, TX
  • David Parker, president & CEO, Covenant Transport, Chattanooga, TN
  • Tonn Ostergard, president & CEO, Crete Carrier Corp., Lincoln, NB
  • Reggie Dupre, CEO, Dupre Logistics, Lafayette, LA
  • Steve Gordon, president, Gordon Trucking, Pacific, WA
  • Mike Gerdin, chairman & CEO, Heartland Express, North Liberty, IA
  • John N. Roberts, president & CEO, JB Hunt Transport, Lowell, AR
  • Jim Richards, president & CEO, KLLM Transport, Jackson, MS
  • Kevin Knight, chairman, Knight Transportation, Phoenix, AZ
  • Charles Hammel, president, Pitt Ohio, Pittsburgh, PA
  • Dan Cushman, president & CEO, PAM Transport, Tontitown, AR
  • David Daniels, president & CEO, May Trucking Co., Salem, OR
  • Jerry Moyes, founder & CEO, Swift Transportation, Phoenix, AZ
  • Robert A. Peiser, chairman, USA Truck, Van Buren, AR

.

post-16320-0-58012800-1434586342.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I were a senator, I'd look at the list of signatories on that letter, laugh, and dispose of it in the trash where it belongs. Do any of those companies even pull doubles? If not, how exactly would the change affect them? One other thing, if the gross weight is still limited to 80,000 pounds, how would adding 5' to each pup "accelerate wear & tear" on the nation's highways? Wouldn't stretching out the bridge between axles REDUCE the wear & tear? After all, that is the entire premise behind the federal bridge law formula

Are you using logic and common sense with the government? I thought they were immune to logical and benifical input.

"OPERTUNITY IS MISSED BY MOST PEOPLE BECAUSE IT IS DRESSED IN OVERALLS AND LOOKS LIKE WORK"  Thomas Edison

 “Life’s journey is not to arrive at the grave safely, in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting ‘Holy shit, what a ride!’

P.T.CHESHIRE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"negative impact on highway safety"

A few of those signatories should take a good long look at their own "safety" records first

  • Like 1

Success is only a stones throw away.................................................................for a Palestinian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see 2 LTL's on the list that pull only or mostly single 45'-53' trailers. In a segment of the industry where a trailer is usually "cubed out" before it is "grossed out" the extra space available to the "doubles" carriers would widen the gap of revenue per unit compared to a single 53' trailer. This is no doubt their biggest motivation for being against this. Personally, I don't think trucks, in the eastern U.S. at least, need to be any larger or heavier, with the exception of permitted oversize loads of course.

  • Like 2

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...