#United States
#Washington, D.C.
#Bigger Trucks
#Coalition Against Bigger Trucks
#local infrastructure
Local Leaders Unite Against Proposed Increases in Truck Sizes and Weights
In an unprecedented move, more than 2,200 local government officials from across the United States have banded together to voice their strong opposition against proposals that seek to increase the size and weight limits of tractor-trailer trucks. This coalition, organized by the Coalition Against Bigger Trucks (CABT), delivered a joint letter to Congress highlighting numerous concerns about the impacts of larger trucks on local infrastructure, safety, and budgets.
The grassroots initiative, which showcases support from county and municipal officials as well as public works directors and engineers from all 50 states, is a clear signal of the widespread apprehension among local leaders regarding potential changes in federal trucking regulations.
Currently, large shipping companies are lobbying Congress to approve measures that would raise the federal weight limit for trucks beyond the existing cap of 80,000 pounds. Among the proposals being considered are pilot projects involving 91,000-pound trucks, as well as allowing certain types of log trucks to weigh as much as 154,000 pounds. Such increases have raised alarm among safety advocates and infrastructure experts alike, who argue that heavier trucks would exacerbate the wear and tear on local roads and bridges that are already in a state of decline.
Jeff Krueger, Supervisor of New Market Township in Minnesota, expressed the sentiment shared by many local officials: “Local communities across the country feel the impact of policy decisions made in Washington, D.C. Congress needs to understand their decisions have real consequences to local governments, including our budgets.”
The letter underscores that the safety and needs of residents in local communities should remain a priority. With each larger truck that enters the fray, the potential for increased safety hazards grows significantly. Studies have indicated that trucks exceeding current weight regulations can jeopardize local infrastructure, leading to costly repairs that local governments may struggle to afford.
Krueger also took a moment to highlight the insidious nature of this issue: “It is very simple – trucks do not load and unload on interstates. Whether for gas or meals or to deliver their freight, trucks ultimately make their way onto local roads and bridges. This impacts us all.” This statement speaks to the fundamental reality that the ramifications of heavier trucks extend far beyond just highway safety to interrupt the day-to-day lives of residents everywhere.
Further emphasizing the gravity of the situation, recent studies from CABT unveiled that introducing 91,000-pound trucks could threaten approximately 68,000 local bridges at risk. The replacement cost for these structures is projected to exceed $78 billion, a financial burden that would fall squarely on state and local governments, many of which are already facing stretched budgets.
Kevan Stone, CEO of the National Association of County Engineers, joined the chorus, stating, “The results are alarming. The cost to replace local bridges at-risk from 91,000 pounds has skyrocketed by $18 billion in just two years. Where does that money come from? Not from Washington and state budgets are already stretched.”
Rick Bailey, Commissioner in Johnson County, Texas, further articulated that while major corporations stand to benefit financially from larger trucks, it is local taxpayers who will need to find ways to cover the associated damages, a sentiment echoed throughout the local government community.
The CABT represents nearly 3,000 supporters nationwide, comprising a diverse group of law enforcement officials, local government representatives, truck drivers, and infrastructure advocates. The voices of these local leaders serve as a critical reminder that legislative decisions made in Congress must account for the localized impact felt across every community. In short, the proposed size and weight increases not only threaten road safety and public infrastructure but also challenge the financial health of local governments tasked with maintaining them.
To learn more about the Coalition Against Bigger Trucks and their campaign against these proposals, visit their official website at www.cabt.org.
The grassroots initiative, which showcases support from county and municipal officials as well as public works directors and engineers from all 50 states, is a clear signal of the widespread apprehension among local leaders regarding potential changes in federal trucking regulations.
Currently, large shipping companies are lobbying Congress to approve measures that would raise the federal weight limit for trucks beyond the existing cap of 80,000 pounds. Among the proposals being considered are pilot projects involving 91,000-pound trucks, as well as allowing certain types of log trucks to weigh as much as 154,000 pounds. Such increases have raised alarm among safety advocates and infrastructure experts alike, who argue that heavier trucks would exacerbate the wear and tear on local roads and bridges that are already in a state of decline.
Jeff Krueger, Supervisor of New Market Township in Minnesota, expressed the sentiment shared by many local officials: “Local communities across the country feel the impact of policy decisions made in Washington, D.C. Congress needs to understand their decisions have real consequences to local governments, including our budgets.”
The letter underscores that the safety and needs of residents in local communities should remain a priority. With each larger truck that enters the fray, the potential for increased safety hazards grows significantly. Studies have indicated that trucks exceeding current weight regulations can jeopardize local infrastructure, leading to costly repairs that local governments may struggle to afford.
Krueger also took a moment to highlight the insidious nature of this issue: “It is very simple – trucks do not load and unload on interstates. Whether for gas or meals or to deliver their freight, trucks ultimately make their way onto local roads and bridges. This impacts us all.” This statement speaks to the fundamental reality that the ramifications of heavier trucks extend far beyond just highway safety to interrupt the day-to-day lives of residents everywhere.
Further emphasizing the gravity of the situation, recent studies from CABT unveiled that introducing 91,000-pound trucks could threaten approximately 68,000 local bridges at risk. The replacement cost for these structures is projected to exceed $78 billion, a financial burden that would fall squarely on state and local governments, many of which are already facing stretched budgets.
Kevan Stone, CEO of the National Association of County Engineers, joined the chorus, stating, “The results are alarming. The cost to replace local bridges at-risk from 91,000 pounds has skyrocketed by $18 billion in just two years. Where does that money come from? Not from Washington and state budgets are already stretched.”
Rick Bailey, Commissioner in Johnson County, Texas, further articulated that while major corporations stand to benefit financially from larger trucks, it is local taxpayers who will need to find ways to cover the associated damages, a sentiment echoed throughout the local government community.
The CABT represents nearly 3,000 supporters nationwide, comprising a diverse group of law enforcement officials, local government representatives, truck drivers, and infrastructure advocates. The voices of these local leaders serve as a critical reminder that legislative decisions made in Congress must account for the localized impact felt across every community. In short, the proposed size and weight increases not only threaten road safety and public infrastructure but also challenge the financial health of local governments tasked with maintaining them.
To learn more about the Coalition Against Bigger Trucks and their campaign against these proposals, visit their official website at www.cabt.org.
Topics Policy & Public Interest）
【About Using Articles】
You can freely use the title and article content by linking to the page where the article is posted.
※ Images cannot be used.
【About Links】
Links are free to use.