U.S.

Truck Size & Weight Study and Cost Allocation Study

Reading Report

Abstracts

In 1994, the Department of Transportation U.S., conducted Comprehensive Truck Size &
Weight Study and Federal Highway Cost Allocation Study based on the unified basic trucking
data with the primary objective of improving the productivity of the trucking industry and the
equity and efficiency of Federal highway user charges. First study aimed to estimate the impacts
of TS&W scenarios on infrastructure, environmental, and others. And next measured the Federal
highway cost responsibility and user fee on various vehicle classes associated with those
scenarios. The Federal Highway Cost Allocation Study was completed in 1997, and the
Comprehensive Truck Size & Weight Study was submitted to the Congress by DOT for various
reasons until 2000. In June 2012, President Obama signed “Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century Act”, and DOT added the contents of the Comprehensive Truck Size & Weight Study
completed in 2000 and submitted a new report in 2016. These two studies show that the
improvement of transportation benefits is mainly due to the LCVs. But the nationwide operation
of LCVs will lead to many adverse impacts on National freight transportation system. However,
these studies did not give concluding comments, in many ways, have raised more questions
instead. In other words, these issues may not be answered satisfactorily on regulation or policy,
this fully confirmed the complexity and degree of concern surrounding TS&W and Cost
Allocation issues.

Comprehensive Truck Size & Weight Study

Introduction
This report presents a comprehensive examination of the current Federal truck size and
weight (TS&W) limits and the potential impact of changes in these limits. Among options to
increase Federal TS&W limits, primary objective always focused on improving productivity of the
trucking industry with large reductions in shipping costs. However these can also bring a variety
of potential adverse impacts including added infrastructure costs, environmental impacts, financial
impacts on competing railroads, traffic congestion, and safety impacts. Therefore, various
segments of the trucking industry view TS&W regulation differently, based on their competitive
and financial position. Not all segments of the industry believe they would benefit from increased
TS&W limits. The same, some states want the flexibility to set TS&W limits, however, others
prefer stronger Federal control over these. These researches have concerned the diversity of the
need for changes in Federal TS&W regulations among States, shippers, infrastructure
management, and various other interested groups with their financial and competitive position.

Background

Current National Network Vehicle Size and Weight Standards

The current Vehicle Size and Weight Standards listed in Exhibit 1 apply on NN highways.

Exhibit 1: National Network Vehicle Size and Weight Standards

No Federal length limit exists for most truck tractor-semitrailers operating on the NN.
Overall Exception: On the NN, combination vehicles (truck tractor plus semitrailer or trailer) designed
Vehicle and used specifically to carry automobiles or boats in specially designed racks may not
Length exceed a maximum overall vehicle length of 65 feet, or 75 feet, depending on the type of
connection between the tractor and the trailer.
Federal law provides that no State may impose a length limit of less than 48 feet on a
semitrailer operating in any truck tractor semitrailer combination on the NN. (Note: A State
Trailer
may permit longer trailers to operate on its NN highways.) Similarly, Federal law provides
Length
that no State may impose a length limit of less than 28 feet on a semitrailer or trailer operating
in a twin-trailer) combination on the NN.
On the NN, no State may impose a width limit of more than or less than 102 inches. Safety
Vehicle
devices (e.g., mirrors, handholds) necessary for the safe and efficient operation of motor
Width
vehicles may not be included in the calculation of width.
Vehicle
No Federal vehicle height limit exists. State standards range from 13.6 feet to 14.6 feet.
Height
Federal weight standards apply to commercial vehicle operations only on the Interstate
Highway System. Off the Interstate Highway System, States may set their own commercial
vehicle weight standards. Federal standards for commercial vehicle maximum weights on the
Interstate Highway System are as follows: Single Axle – 20,000 lbs.; Tandem Axle – 34,000
Vehicle
lbs.; GVW – 80,000 lbs.
Weight
The Federal Bridge Formula, which was introduced in 1975 to reduce the risk of damage to
highway bridges by requiring more axles, or a longer wheelbase to compensate for increased
vehicle weight, may require a lower GVW; depending on the number and spacing of the axles
in the combination vehicle.

Chronology of Federal Truck Weight Laws

Laws enacted in 1956, 1974, 1982, and 1991 form the basis for today’s Federal TS&W limits
apply on NN highways. And these Federal laws that affect Federal truck weight limits are
summarized in Exhibit 2 below.
 Exhibit 2: Chronology of Federal Size and Weight Laws, 1956-Present
Regulation
Federal -Aid Highway Act – 1956
Federal -Aid Highway Act Amendments –
1974
Surface Transportation Assistance Act
(STAA) – 1982
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act (ISTEA) – 1991
Weight Regulation
Interstate System:
 Single-axle limit: 18,000 lbs.
 Tandem-axle limit: 32,000 lbs.
 Gross vehicle weight: 73,280 lbs.
Interstate System:
 Single-axle limit: 20,000 lbs.
 Tandem-axle limit: 34,000 lbs.
 Gross vehicle weight: 80,000 lbs.
Interstate System: Mandated maximum limits on the
Interstate, and made the previous single-and tandem-axle and
GVW maximum the States could allow, the minimums they
must allow on the Interstate highways.
Longer-Combination Vehicle (LCV) Freeze.

Exemptions to Federal Weight Limits

“Grandfather clauses” were granted to States that allowed higher limits so as to be the
exception to Federal TS&W limits. “Grandfather clauses” and exemptions add to the flexibility
and complexity of enforcing nationally uniform Federal weight limits on the National Network
System. There are three different grandfather clauses in the chronology of Federal TS&W laws,
1956-Present. The first, enacted in 1956, deals principally with axle weights, gross weights, and
permitting practices; the second, adopted in 1975, applies to bridge formula and axle spacing
tables; and the third, enacted in 1991, ratifies State practices with respect to LCVs. Examples of
State exceptions to Federal Truck Weight Limits listed in Exhibit 3.

Exhibit 3: State Exceptions to Federal Truck Weight Limits

Maximum Axle Applicable Routes
State Maximum GVW
Weight Highway From To
Single: 20,000 lbs. I-25 New Mexico Wyoming
Colorado 110,000 lbs.
Tandem: 36,000 lbs. I-70 Utah I-70 Exit 90
I-90 Mass Turnpike
Single: 22,400 lbs. New York
Massachusetts 127,400 lbs. Turnpike Exit 18
Tandem: 36,000 lbs. State
Authority Boston
Single: 20,000 lbs. All NN routes except SR 410 and SR123 near
Washington 105,500 lbs.
Tandem: 34,000 lbs. Mt Rainer National Park

LCVs (Long Combination Vehicles) are combinations of multiple Trailers on tractor trucks
which have significantly greater cubic and loading capacity but also greater impacts on Highway
System as compared to the standard 5-axle tractor-semitrailer truck with one trailer. The most
significant legislative action related to Federal TS&W limits was the ISTEA freeze on LCVs
operations which prohibits all States from expanding routes or removing restrictions on LCVs
after June 1, 1991. However, based on the actual and lawful operation in the States as of June 1,
1991, LCVs were allowed in 23 States’ applicable routes, but in six States they are allowed to
operate only on turnpike facilities. These routes are graphically displayed on the map in Exhibit 4.

Exhibit 4: Permitted Longer Combination Vehicles on the National Highway System: 2011

Study Object

Truck classes
In order to reflect the differences of either each truck classes’ impacts on the Nation Highway
System or their added productivity, Trucks for TS&W study was grouped into five categories: single
unit trucks, tractor-semitrailer trucks, truck-trailer combinations, twin trailer and semitrailer
combinations. Additionally, trucks are grouped into many axle-number categories to capture
differences in this study that vary with axle-number and its corresponding weight. The classification
of trucks used for this study is:

 2-, 3-, and 4- or more axle single unit trucks.

 3-, 4-, 5-, 6-, and 7- or more axle tractor-semitrailer trucks with two categories of 5-axle
vehicles, one with standard tandem axles and one with split tandem axles.

 3-, 4-, 5-, and 6- or more axle truck-trailer combinations.

 5-, 6-, 7-, and 8- or more axle twin trailer/semitrailer combinations.

 Triple trailer combinations.
Potential impacts
The potential impacts considered most important include productivity, infrastructure impacts
(pavements, bridges, and geometrics), safety, traffic congestion, environmental impacts (primarily
air quality and noise), and impacts on railroads.
This study estimated the impact of productivity by explicitly considering inventory and other
logistics costs that shippers evaluate in making real-world transportation decisions and by
analyzing in detail large numbers of specific moves rather than a few typical moves.
The pavement and bridge impacts were based on analyses of large numbers of actual
facilities using data from the Highway Performance Monitoring System and the National Bridge
Inventory.
The safety analysis mainly focused on the stability and control properties of different truck
configurations at different weights and dimensions. It provided an indication of its relative safety
compared to trucks currently in widespread use where crash rates and other direct evidence of the
relative safety of certain vehicles are not available.
A state-of-the-art method involved estimating potential diversion of traffic flow from one
type of truck to another or between rail and trucks if TS&W limits were changed was the major
part of the study. This method assumed one or more "scenario vehicles" which traffic diverted
from existing trucks or from rail potentially in each scenario to study the competition and
cooperation between trucks and other modes of freight transportation, based on truck traffic
forecast for the year 2000.
Environmental impacts were not considered in this report.

Illustrative TS&W Scenarios

There were five TS&W scenarios in which this study developed to estimate the impacts on
productivity, infrastructure, safety, traffic congestion, the environment and the railroads. Scenarios
were defined as the base case and the various options on both increase and decrease Federal TS&W
limits with the National Highway System upon which larger, heavier trucks could operate. Those
illustrative scenarios are briefly described below.
Uniformity Scenario assumes grandfather clauses would be removed and requires States to
adopt Federal weight limits on all NN highways whether State limits over or under it. In especial,
the LCVs could only operate with the 80,000 pounds weight limit.
North American Trade Scenarios allow heavier gross vehicle weights on certain
configurations by increasing allowable tridem-axle loads to be more consistent with Canada and
Mexico. The alternative limits in this scenario were:
 Tridem-axle load limits, one at 44,000 pounds and the second at 51,000 pounds.
  Gross weights of six-axle tractor-semitrailers weighing up to 97,000 pounds; four-axle
single-unit truck weighing up to 71,000 pounds; eight-axle twin-trailer combination
weighing up to 131,000 pounds with trailer lengths of 33 feet.
LCVs Nationwide Scenario assumes LCV operations on a nationwide network. And limited
networks would be designated upon which LCVs could operate.
H.R. 551 Scenario, "The Safe Highways and Infrastructure Preservation Act" contained
three provisions related to Federal TS&W limits:
 phase out trailers longer than 53 feet
 freeze State grandfather clauses
 freeze weight limits (including divisible load permits) on non-Interstate portions of the
NHS
Triples Nationwide Scenario assumes operation of triple-trailer combinations across the
country at the same weights and dimensions as are assumed under the LCVs Nationwide Scenario.

Scenarios Impacts

Exhibit 5: Estimated Diversion for Selected Vehicle Configurations for Illustrative Truck Size and
Weight Scenarios
Vehicle 5-axle tractor 6-axle tractor-
LCVs Total truck Rails
Class semitrailer semitrailer
Car-
VMT % VMT % VMT % VMT % %
Scenario miles
(mil.) change (mil.) change (mil.) change (mil.) change change
(mil.)
Base case 83,895 na 6,059 na 1,517 na 128,288 na 25,555 na
Uniformity 91,205 8.7 3,519 -41.9 5,42 -64.3 132,351 3.2 na na
N.A. Trade
22,274 -73.5 6,209 2.5 4,9837 3185.2 114,671 -10.6 24,354 -4.7
1
N.A. Trade
24,997 -70.2 6,246 3.1 4,7453 3028.1 114,632 -10.6 24,073 -5.8
2
LCV s
19,611 -76.6 na na 4,0980 2601.4 98,562 -23.2 20,546 -19.6
Nationwide
H.R. 551 83,915 0.0 6,051 -0.1 1,517 0.0 128,311 0.0 na na
Triples 23,405 -72.1 na na 3,9647 2513.5 102,400 -20.2 24,533 -4.0

It should be pointed out that: (1) N.A. Trade 1 -- 44,000 pound tridem axles, N.A. Trade 2 -- 51,000 pound
tridem axles; (3) The Total Truck does not equal the sum of the three vehicle classes shown in the table because
other vehicle classes included in the Total Truck are not shown in the table.

Exhibit 5 shows estimates of the diversion of traffic from existing trucks and from rail to
selected vehicles for each of the scenarios. The diversion of traffic reflects the preference in which
the transportation industry, in particular the shippers and carriers select the truck category, based
on their competitive and financial positon under different scenarios. Meanwhile the advantageous
characteristic of the economical efficiency of different vehicles such as Ton-mileage also can be
reflected to some extent.
The two scenarios involving some roll back of State TS&W limits show small increases in
travel by 5-axle tractor-semitrailer combinations and small increases in total heavy truck VMT.
Moreover the Uniformity Scenario would reduce travel by 6-axle tractor-semitrailers and LCVs
because those vehicles beyond the limits under this scenario. The four scenarios allowing heavier
vehicle operations all show large (over 70%) reductions in travel by 5-axle tractor-semitrailers and
very large increases in LCVs. At the same time, total VMT estimated is about 10-20% less than
total base case VMT. More remarkable, most VMT that shifts from 5-axle tractor-semitrailers
diverts to LCVs instead of 6-axle tractor-semitrailers in these scenarios.
Obviously the LCVs have the greatest economical efficiency compare to other vehicle classes
due to the significantly advantage of the additional cubic capacity as well as weight capacity. And
rightly so, the transportation industry prefer LCVs with the precondition of TS&W limits under
specific scenarios.

Exhibit 6: Estimated Impacts of Illustrative Truck Size and Weight Scenarios

(Percent Change from Base Case)
N.A. Trade N.A. Trade LCV
Uniformity H.R. 551 Triples
1 2 Nationwide
Pavement Costs -0.3 -1.6 -1.2 -0.2 0 0
Bridge Costs -13.0 +33.1 +42.2 +34.4 0 +10.4
Geometric
0 +13.3 +13.3 +965.0 0 0
Costs
Congestion
+0.6 -1.2 -1.2 -2.9 0 -7.6
Costs
Energy Costs +2.1 -6.2 -6.3 -13.8 0 -12.8
Shipper Costs +3.0 -5.1 -7.0 -11.4 0 -8.65
Rail
na -42.8 -49.7 -55.8 na -38.2
Contribution*

As Exhibit 6 shows above, all impacts under the H.R. 551 Scenario are nothing compared to
the Base Case, and the scenarios allowing heavier vehicle operations except Triples all show some
increases in the geometric costs, among which the LCV Nationwide Scenario changes the most
with 965.0% greater than the Base Case. Moreover the congestion cost and energy cost show the
same variation trend, which the Uniformity Scenario increases and the others would be the
opposite. In particular the difference between the pavement cost and the bridge cost in change is
noteworthy. The pavement costs all show very small (under 2%) reductions under each scenario,
in contrast the bridge costs show larger changes, among which the Uniformity Scenario reduces
by 13.0% and other scenarios allowing heavier vehicle operations increase among 10.4-42.2%. By
comparison above, it suggest that certain scenarios could produce significant reductions in energy
cost and shipping costs but significant increases in bridge cost and geometric costs, at the same
time produce small changes in pavement cost and congestion costs. More remarkable, even though
the changes in shipper costs and energy cost are all smaller in percentage terms than changes in
some other impacts, the base for these changes is much larger.
The analysis of scenario impacts on rail contribution indicates that several scenarios could
significantly reduce revenues available to cover railroad fixed costs and sustain necessary ongoing
investment. Industry-wide estimates shows that contribution could be reduced by over 50 percent
under the LCVs Nationwide Scenario and by lesser amounts under the N.A. Trade and Triples
Scenarios, which also allow more extensive operation of LCVs.
Safety impacts are not shown on Exhibit 6 because there are so many dimensions to the
safety issue that no one adequately captures safety considerations surrounding the scenarios. In
general the LCV configurations show poorer stability or control properties than the base tractor-
semitrailer configuration, and the shorter the trailers, the worse the lateral instability. Reducing
allowable weights and dimensions of scenario vehicles would improve stability and control, but
would also reduce productivity of the trucking industry.

Conclusions

Significant productivity benefits are estimated for scenarios that allow heavier truck weights,
but these benefits are derived primarily from the more extensive operation of LCVs. However the
more extensive operation of LCVs would cause significant increase of infrastructure costs,
adverse impacts on railroads, and potentially negative safety impacts. Therefore States differ
markedly on the positions regarding changes in Federal TS&W limits. States that currently allow
LCVs generally favor lifting the LCV freeze and liberalizing rules under which LCVs may
operate. They argue that LCVs improve productivity, that LCVs have had good safety records in
their jurisdictions, and that highways have become safer since 1982. By contrast, due to concerns
about infrastructure costs, safety risks and the inferior position in competing with neighboring
States that currently allow LCVs , States currently do not allow LCVs generally oppose changes
in Federal TS&W laws that would give States either the flexibility to allow higher gross weights
or to allow LCVs. In order to earn additional truck productivity with the minimum infrastructure
costs and potential safety concerns, still other States would like increases in gross weights allowed
for 6-axle tractor-semitrailers and single unit trucks like dump trucks, garbage trucks, and other
specialized hauling vehicles. In general, such vehicles would not be expected to cause additional
pavement costs and geometric costs on Interstate Highways, meanwhile bridge impacts would be
mixed depending on the gross weights allowed.
There were some changes in National Network While basic Federal TS&W limits have not
changed since 1982. Several States have been granted exceptions to Federal gross weight or axle-
weight limits in authorizing legislation, including granting increasing numbers of oversize and
overweight permits, especially for international containers, and increasing the cubic capacity of
vehicles, primarily as the result of increasing trailer lengths from 45 feet to 48 feet, 53 feet, even
to 60 feet.
However, this did not give concluding comments on the limits of truck size, gross weight,
axle-distribution and the National operation scope of the LCVs. The Department will continue to
improve this analytical framework, and to update this TS&W study with updated data and
analytical tools and other on-going research by TRB, the NCHRP and other institutions during the
next several years. An developed consensus might be identified that could improve trucking
productivity, ensure safety, have acceptable infrastructure costs and impacts to railroads or other
modes, in other words, the benefits clearly outweighed potential costs. Obviously it requires
further study and close coordination with States, shippers, carriers, and other industry groups to
achieve this consensus.

Cost Allocation Study

Introduction