Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 10 2017 Public Presented PaperworkCABT C oa lition Aga inst B i ggerTru cks National Organizations Opposing Truck Size & Weight lncreases National Troopers Coalition National Sheriffs' Association lnternational Association of Chiefs of Police National Association of Police Organizations National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians National Association of Counties National League of Cities National Association of Towns and Townships National Association of County Engineers American Public Works Association lnternational City/County Management Association U.S. Conference of Mayors General Federation of Women's Clubs Owner-Operator lndependent Drivers Association lnternational Brotherhood of Teamsters S IUART Transportation Division Truck Safety Coalition Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways Road Safe America Brain lnjury Association of Amenca Parents Against Tired Truckers American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association Railway Supply lnstitute Association of American Railroads October, 2017 Bigger Trucks: Bad fbr America's Local Communities Dear Mernbers of Congress, Representing local communities and Americans across the nation, we are concerned about our transportation infrastructure. We strongly oppose proposals in Congress that would allow any increase in truck length or weight-longer double-trailer trucks or heavier single-trailer trucks would only make our current situation worse. Local communities and our residents are what drive this country. We work every day to make sure the needs and saf'ety of our residents are met. Allowing heavier and longer trucks will most certainly set Lls back in our ef'forts. Much of our transpoftation infiastructure that connects people to jobs, schools and leisure is in disrepair, in part because local and rural roads and bridges are older and not built to the same standards as Interstates. lVlany of us are unable to keep up with our current maintenance schedules and replacement costs because ofunderfunded budgets. The impacts of longer or heavier tractor-trailers would only worsen these problems. Millions of miles of truck traffic operate on local roads and bridges across the country, and any bigger trucks allowed on our Interstates would mean additional trucks that ultimately find their way onto our local inflrastructure. Longer and heavier trucks would cause significantly more damage to our transportation inflrastructure, costing us billions of dollars that local government budgets simply cannot aflord, compromising the very routes that American motorists use every day. On behalf of America's local comrnunities and our residents. we ask that you oppose any legislation that would allow anv increase in truck len-eth or weight. Sincerely, Please print your title and name here to be added to the list fbr this letter - thank you Longer Double-Trailer Trucks Endanger Motorists and Damage Infrastructure Prepared by CABT, lanuary 20L7 A few large trucking companies are pushing Congress to force states to allow longer double-trailer trucks, or "Double 33s." These longer double-trailer trucks would replace not only today's shorter, 28- foot double-trailer trucks, but also many 53-foot single-trailer trucks that commonly operate on the road today. Longer double-trailertrucks would add new dangers for motorists and damage our infrastructure. Double 33s are 9L feet in length-that is 10 feet longer than the current doubles they are intended to replace andtT feet longerthan current single-trailertrucks. Congress in 2015 rejected these longer double-trailer trucksl, and USDOT in its 2016 Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Limits Study, recommended that Congress not approve these or any other longer or heavier trucks2. Double 33s Would Replace Single-Trailer Trucks Double-trailer trucks represent a relatively small percentage of trucks operating on our roads today. The majority of combination trucks in operation are 53-foot single-trailer trucks. lf Congress requires states to allow the longer doubles, today's truck traffic would change dramatically. Since Double 33s have 24 percent more capacity than 53-foot trailers, market forces would push companies currently operating single-trailer trucks to replace their fleets with Double 33s. According to a 2015 analysis, this would incur a massive shift from single-trailer trucks to Double 33s, resulting in approximately 42 to 101 billion additional miles of double-trailer truck travel on our nation's highways3. Longer Double-Trailer Trucks Would Add New Dangers to the Highwavs An influx of double-trailer trucks on the highway would have severe safety implications for motorists. Studies have consistently shown that multi-trailer trucks-doubles and triple-trailer trucks-are more dangerous than single-trailer trucks. A 2013 Marshall University-led studya found that double-trailer trucks have an 11 percent higher fatality rate than single-trailer trucks. This finding is consistent with findings made by USDOT in a 2000 studys. Below are several reasons these trucks are more dangerous: 1. Longer stopping distances. Double 33s take 252 feet to stop-that is 17 feet longer stopping distance than today's single-trailer trucks and 22 feet longer than today's twin-trailer trucks6, r t double 28s stop here 91-foot doubles stop here 'l'rlr'r'i'r' 22 feet 1 On Nov. t0,2015, the Senate rejected increasing the length ofdouble-trailer trucks as part ofthe surface transportation reauthorization bill on a 56-3 1 floor vote; and on Nov. 1,8, 20L5, the U.S. Senate rejected increasing the length of double- trailer trucks on the omnibus spending bill on a voice vote. z IISDOT; 2016. Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Limits Study, Finol Report to Congress. 3 Mingo, Roger D., and Mark L, Burton, Mark L.; 2015, Mandated Twin 33 Trailers Produce Costly Shifts in Freight Movement. a Marshall University, 2073, An Analysis of Truck Size and Weight: Phase I - Safety. s USDOT; 2000. Comprehensive Truck Size ond Weight Study. e USDOT; 2075. Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Lintits Study, Highway Safety and Truck Crash Contparative Analysis Technicol Report. 7 e t 2. lncreased rollover propensity and rearward amplification. Double 33s experience increased rollover vulnerability, poorer stability and compromised avoidance maneuver compared to single-trailer trucksT. 3. More wear and tear. Double-trailer configurations have 58 percent higher out-of-service violation rates than single-trailer trucks8. This is especially important because a201.6 study by the lnsurance lnstitute for Highway Safety (llHS) found that trucks with any out-of-service violation are 352 percent more likely to be involved in a crashe. Double 33s Would Cause Significant lnfrastructure Damage According to its 20L6 USDOT study, Double 33s would increase pavement damage by 1.8 percent to 2.7 percent'0, which translates to $1.2 to S1.8 billion in estimated pavement damage every year". Also, USDOT found that nearly 2,500 lnterstate and other National Highway System bridges would need to be strengthened or reinforced to handle the longer double-trailer trucks, costing taxpayers up to 51.1 billion12. The study accounts for only 20 percent of bridges-the other 80 percent of bridges on state and local roads would be more vulnerable to the longer trucks. Many Trucking Companies Oppose Double 33s The Truckload Carriers Association (TCA), representing over 700 trucking companies, strongly opposes longer double-trailer trucks. ln fact, TCA wrote to Members of Congress in 2015 to express their concerns over increasing the Iength of double-trailer trucks, stating that these trucks would increase costs of delivering freight, decrease fuel efficiency, incur additional expenses to train or retrain drivers, increase the potential for driver injuries while coupling and decoupling trailers, and exacerbate truck parking problems13. The Double 33s Mandate Would Override State Laws This legislation would preempt state laws and require every state to allow longer double-trailer trucks on their roads, even if the they determined that their roadways were not capable of safely accommodating the longer trucks or that they would damage their pavement and bridges. 7 tbid. rl lbid. e Irrsrrrance lnstitutc fbr Ilighr,vay Safcry; 2016. Crash Risk Factors Jbr lnterstdte Large Trucks irt North Cqrolina. 10 USDOT. 201"5. Cotnprehensive'l'ntck Size and Weight l,intits Study, Volume 1.: Technical Reports Summary. 1 I R.D. Mingo and Associates; 2 01 5. Analysis of 201 2 F HWA Highr,r,ay Statistics and selected Cost Allocalion str.rdies. r2 Ibid. r:r Truckload Carrie r>^ Association; October, ?0,'2015. Letter to IIousc Trarnsportation and Infrastructure Conrmittee Chairrnan Bill Shustcr and Ranktng Member Pctcr DcFazio. 2 Bigger Trucks Threaten Rural Communities and lnfrastructure Prepared by CABT, )anuary 2017 The Double 33s proposal would mandate that states allow these longer double-trailer trucks to operate on 200,000 miles of roadways, referred to as the "NationalNetwork," as well as any state or local roads intersecting with the National Network that are deemed necessary for "reasonable access" for loading, unloading, fuel and rest. Heavier trucks would simiiarly find their way onto state and local roads, since no truck loads or unloads freight on an lnterstate, meaning these trucks would spillover into rural communities. Local roads account for 95 percent of the more than 4 miliion public roadways in the U.S. Large trucks travel 50 billion miles a year on local roads. That ls one-third of all large-truck vehicle miles traveled. And when these trucks run on local roads, their impact would be greater because these roads are more vulnerable to the impacts of the bigger trucks: The majority of automobile traffic, 56 percent, is on local roads. Rural roads and bridges are at the intersection of significant lar8e-truck activity and where constituents live and work. Bigger trucks would impose an additionaltax burden triggered by further damage to roads that will shift the responsibility to states and localities without any federal source for cost recovery. The Road lnformation PrcEtam,2O\5. RurolConnections: Chollenges ond Oppottunities in Americo's Heortlond Proponents of heavier and onger trucks would have you believe these trucks would only run on lnterstates and other major hlghways, and would not operate on rural roads. ln fact, these bigger trucks would not be limited to the lnterstates for several reasons: Roads and bridges offthe NHS are older and ln worse shape than NHS routes-36 percent of bridges off of the NHS are over 50 years old while only 1.4 percent of lnterstate bridges are that old. Nationwide, 66 percent ofthe bridges classified as "structurally deficient" are owned by the local cities and towns, not the federal government or states. Rural roads are the most dangerous-they are more likely than NHS routes to have roadway features that reduce safety, such as narrow lanes, limited shoulders, sharp curves and steep slopes. Rural roads have a traffic fatallty rate that is nearly 300 percent higher than allother roadsl. Rural roads and bridges cannot be an afterthought to the debate of allowing heavier and longer trucks on U.S. highways because of the costs to highway safety and infrastructure: OPPOSING TRUCK SIZE OR WEIGHT INCREASES WHEREAS, thc U.S. Contbrcncc of Mayors is concornccl rvith the welfarc of motorists and the cos1. quality and rcliability of our nation's infi'astructure; and WHEREAS, on average 4,000 pcoplc are killed in truck crashes each year in the United States and 100,000 more are injurecl; and WHEREAS, lalge trucks havc a tatal crash involr,'curcnt rate 40 percent liighcr than that of passcnger vehiclcs, according to the National Highway Saf'ety Adnrinistration; and WHEREAS, every crash inrposes bolh hurnan and econornic costs as rvell as a significant clcan-up burdcn that can rcquire rnany hours and irnpedc othcr traffic; and WHEREAS" the esrimaled cosls to society for each tirtality is $7.24 million and thc c<;st for czrch injury crash is S[321,000 pcl injury; ancl WHEREAS, allowing heaviel or longer trucks u,oulcl threaten the safety of other motorists as well as law enforccrnent officers becausc hcavicr and longcr trucks would be more dilficult 1o control, take longer to slop, and increase crash severity; and WHERBAS, ncarly 20 pcr ccnt of commercial vchiclcs inspected are takcn out of service fbr mechanical problems, which ale most commonly brake issues" and tlucks rvith out-of-scrvicc braking conclitions are l.tJ tirncs urorc likely to bc assigncd crash responsibility: and WHEREAS. govcnrrncnt studics havc rarscd qucstions about thc saf'ctv of ecluiprnent nrodified to haul hear ier loads; and WHEREAS, the tmcking induslry is an important part ol'the nation's economy and safbly sizccl anil weightcd trucks arc a neccled tool to cnable truck drivcrs to conducl their essenlial rvork in a sat'e and responsible manner; and WHEREAS. more than half thc bridges on thc National Highrvay Systcm arc urorc than 4() years old and ncarly 25 pcrccnt are ratccl as slruclllrally dcficicnt or functionally obsolctel and WHEREAS, trucks hcavior than 80,000 pounds also raisc conceflrs rclatcd to thc nation's deteriorating infi'astructure because they are likely 1o accelerate the dctcrioration of roa<l surfaccs ancl bridges; ancl 2r8 G.n.i..Cou.tY, n.w York Pre(e count, w8h'ntroh Nonhe.n x.!'on vice Pr6idcnr sourh.a{ nego. vke tr.tidenr [o.lh C.ntr.l fi es'on Vice Prcsid.nt Chanp.re. County, rllinos 54th c.ntal RcBron vi.? P,ei de1 wene.i Retror v@ Prnldent 5. a 3.6ac cou.rv, C.lit*^ia Pah Bc.ch Colnry, Florida National Association of County Engineers May 3,2017 Dear Members of Congress I am writing on behalf of the National Association of County Engineers (NACE) to express our opposition to any increase in truck size or weight NACE has held the position that we "Oppose any increases in vehicle size and weights as palt of the next reauthorization unless set-aside funding is provided for the improvement of all roads." Bigger trucks accelerate the deterioration of the nation's highways and local roads and bridges, putting further pressure on federal, state and local governments to find funds to repair these essential roadways. Roughly one-third ofall truck miles operate offthe lnterstate and National Highway Network. This means any increases in the weight or length of trucks will have a major impact on the very roads and bridges least able to handle these increases. ln addition, there are serious safety issues associated with larger trucks. With 2015 and 2016 bnnging the largest increase in highway fatalities in the last fifty years, we cannot afford the increased risks associated with these vehicles County bridges in particular are susceptible to damage and failure due to weights that exceed their limits. These structures provide vital access for goods and people. Closing these routes due to failure or damage will result in huge economic losses ln 2015, there was significant debate on truck size and weight issues ln the Senate, double 33-foot trarlers were defeated with strong bFpartisan opposition This proposal would have added '10 feet to the length of the short" doubles on the roads today The House rejected a proposal that would have allowed 91,000-pound trucks lf passed, these trucks would have created incredible problems lt was the right decision in 2015 and the right decision now The National Association of County Engineers stand united in our opposition to heavier and longer trucks. We request that Congress also oppose these bigger trucks. Feel free to contact me at 202-393- 5041 if you have any questions. Thank you, BrianC Roberts. PE Executive Director, NACE Brian C. Rob6ds, PE . Execulive Dir€clor . 660 Nodh Capitot St. NW, Suite 420 . Wash ngton, DC 2OOO1T 202.393.5041 ' E nace@naco.org . www.countyengineers.org THE VOICE OF COUNTY ROAD OFFICIALS /3- rA- Your lotnprehensrve Publit Workc Besource AMER'CAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION ,,ltt\ I niltd bhd. \uilp /U) Kan\d\ ( tty. M() 64l0lli6?\ 8l (,.4 7 2 -6 t U) 8(n.8r' 4-APWA l,1x 8t647?-l6lO l)/7 K \iPq l\W. \uttP 750 Washtr Ut(x t, lX ? Om\. 4rR l .)0)408-qu1 \tx ?O2408-9\4? Nor.ember 3.2015 Dear Representative Matsui. We are writing today to ask you to oppose any \!'eight or length increases lbr tractor-trailer trucks. specit'ically the proposal to increase truck ueiglrts to 91.000 pounds and the Double -33s contiguration. The American Public Works Association (APWA) exists to develop and support the people. agencies- and organizations that plan. build. maintain" and irnprove our conrlnunities. Working togethcr. APWA and its 63 chaptcrs across thc ooulttry. uilh over r8.5(X) nrenrbers. contribute to a suslainable quality ollit-e lbr all Atnericans. Legislative language currently being considered in Congress would require states to allow double-trailer trucks that are 17 feet longer than the most prevalent configuration - the single 5-3 tbot trailers. Due to a gain ol 24o,o in cubic capacitl'and associated lorver freight costs. Double 33s would replace a signiticant number ol 53-tbot single-trailer trucks. In a 2000 stud-v. the U.S. Departrnent of Transportation (USDOT) concluded that multi{railer tnrcks have an ll-percent higher fatal crash rate than single- trailer trucks. Tr.r,in 33s rvould also exacerbate inirastructure darrrage bv adding additional stress to both pavernent and bridges. Heavier and longer lrucks rvould also cause signilicantlv rnore darnage to inliastructure. White Congressional approval o1'heavier trr.rcks sould be limited to l-ederal-aid lrighuavs. alrnost no tractor-trailr:r stops or starts its trip on an Interstate highu,ar' - traveling on roads and bridges maintained bv states and local nrunicipalities. Local roads account lbr 95 percent ol lhe nrore than 4 million public roaduar,s in the U.S. and large trucks travel 50 billion milcs a vear or'r local roads. That is one-third ol'all large-truck vehicle miles traveled. When these trucks run on local roads and bridges. their impact u,ould be greater because thev are the most vulnerable. Thirty-six percent of bridges otTolthe NHS are over 50 \,ears old. uhile onlv i4 percent ollnterstate bridges are that age. Nations.ide,66 percent of the bridges classified as "structurally deficient" are orvned bv the local cities and to\tr1ls. ltot the lbderal government or states. A 2013 repon published by The Road lnformation Prograrn (TRIP) lbund that 15 percenr of the natiou's major rural roads rvere rated in poor condition and another 39 percent rvere rated in rnediocre or thir condition. The additional darnage caused bv bigger trucks rvould. in turn. increase delicit spending as uell as the financial burden to ntunicipalities aud taxpavers. Our rnentber municipalities have alreadv expericnoed signilicant budget cuts and do not have the l'unding to maiutaitr their roads and bridges todar,. much less to repair local inliastructure dantage caused bv heavier or longer trucks. Sincerelv- Larr_v W. Frevert. P.E. PWLF Inleri rn Executive Director P8tsotlrr SrbnR L,$a. PMf I Nl E RM E XEC Ul ME Dtfr t C I OR LMYW FrcHl. Pt.lWLf Pickle Ball History 1965 - After playing golf one Saturday during the summer, Joel Pritchard, congressman from Washington State and Bill Bell, successful businessman, returned to Pritchard's home on Bainbrjdge lsland, WA (near Seattle) to iind their families sitting around with nothing to do. The property had an old badminton coud so Pritchard and Bell looked for some badminton equipment and could not find a fuli set of rackets. They improvised and started playing with ping-pong paddles and a perforated plastic ball. At first they placed the net at badminton height of 60 inches and volleyed the ball over the net. As the weekend progressed, the players found that the ball bounced well on the asphalt surface and soon the net was lowered to 36 inches. The following weekend, Barney NlcCallum was introduced to the game at Pritchard's home. Soon, the three men created rules, relying heavily on badminton. They kept in mind the original purpose, which was to provide a game that the whole family could play together Pickle ball got it's name from Joel Pritchard's dog. 1972 - A cotpotation was formed to protect the creation of this new sport 1975 - The National abserver published an article about pickleball followed by a 1976 article in Tennis magazine about "America's newest racquet sport." 1976 - During the spring of 1976, the first known pickleball tournament in the world was held at South Center Athletic Club in Tukwi{a, Washington.. ln fact, they practiced with large wood paddles and a softball sized whiffle ball. 1984 - USAPA "was orEanized to perpetuate the growth and advancement of pickleball on a national level." The first rulebook was published in Itlarch, 1984. 1984 - The first composite paddle was made by Arlen Paranto, a Boeing lndustrial Engineer He used the fiberglas/nomex honeycomb panels that commercial airlines use for their floors and part of the airplane's structural system. Arlen made about 1,000 paddles from fiberglas/honeycomb core and graphite/honeycomb core materials until he sold the company to Frank Candelario. 2001 - The game of pickleball was introduced for the first time in the Arizona Senior Olympics through the efforts of Earl Hill. The tournament was played at Happy Trails RV Park in Surprise, AZ and drew 100 players. lt was the largest event ever played to that point. Over the next few years the event grew to nearly 300 players. 2003 - There are 39 known places to play in North America listed on the Pickleball Stuff website. This represents 10 States, 3 Canadian Provinces and about 150 individual courts. 1990 - By 1990, pickleball was being played in all 50 states. 2016- There are approximately 2.5 million pickle ball players in the US - (SFIA). Pickle Ball in Prior Lake - - A Brief History 2Ol2- Jim Miller, Pickleball Ambassador of Southwest Minnesota and resident of Prior Lake, introduced pickleball to Prior Lake. Jim approached the Parks and Recreation department of Prior Lake for use of Lakefront tennis courts for pickleball play. Prior Lake pickleball schedule was Monday and Wednesday mornings 9-11am, Tuesday and Thursday nights 6-8 pm at the Lakefront tennis courts. Jim Miller gave lessons every Tuesday evening. A pickleball demonstration was held at Lakefront Days on the basketball court at Lakefront Park. By yea/s end, Prior Lake had 2 temporary courts at Lakefront Park tennis courts and 7-10 people playing regularly. 2013- Prior Lake pickleball courts increased to 4 temporary courts. Prior Lake (PL) Pickleball group increased to 3040 players. Prior Lake pickleball schedule was Monday and Wednesday mornings 9-11 am, Tuesday and Thursday nights 5-8 pm at Lakefront tennis courts. Jim Miller gave lessons every Tuesday evening. We held an end ofyear social with a fun tournament. We played pickleball indoors January through March at Glendale Elementary School. 2014- We continued to play on 4 temporary pickleball courts. PL Pickleball group increased to 80 players. Prior Lake pickleball was scheduled to play at the Lakefront tennis courts. Our schedule was Monday and Wednesday mornings 9-11 am, Tuesday and Thursday nights 6-8 pm. Jim Miller gave lesson every Tuesday evening. We held an end of year social with a fun tournament. We started to play pickleball indoors at Dakotah Sport and Fltness. 2015-PL Pickleball group had increased to 133 players. We increased the number of temporary courts in September to 8. We shared the cost of lining the courts, nets, and balls with the Parks and Recreation department. We kept our playing schedule the same as in past years. We added Wednesday nights for the more competitive players from 6-8 pm. We held an end of year social with a fun tournament. PL Pickleballgroup held a Christmas social at the VFW in Prior Lake. 2017- We expect our numbers to grow with the increased interest in pickleball and Grainwood senior citizen complex across the street from Lakefront park. PL Pickleball group has shared the expenses with the Parks and Recreation department for nets, balls, and lining of courts. 2016-PL Pickleball group grew to 192 players. Pickleball was played Monday through Friday mornings. Times varied but usually 7:30 am to 11:30 am, Tuesday and Thursday nights 6-8:00 pm, with lessons on Tuesday evening. wednesday nights for the advanced players from 6-8pm. saturday morning was used for ladder play 8-11:00 am. sunday evenings were used often for playing. we respected the one hour limit, if tennis players came to play. We held an end of year social with fun tournament. Our 2nd annual Christmas social will be held at the VFW of prior Lake on December 2nd. 20 ft.(inclusive uf lines) bo \..PICKLEBHLL Rscormed ild Pos,b Erbit E ir0dsids Sidelim flecommend llne Widtfis = 2ln Net Heiqht at Sideline = 3E in. (34 ln. a Demer) [ine 44ft. (inclusive dlines) Sideline Baseline Ee|rterline llne lohrances: - lla line to ouuide of NllZ ltle;1' +l - 118" - l{et lirc ll outside d ba seline?2' +l - ll t' - 0rrsils sidslirn t! outside snhfine: A!'+/- l/4" - 0utside sidEline b Eedlrline: l0' +/- l/E' . Ohgonal dimrnsion to outside ol lines 48' 4" +/- 3/4" 48 ft. 4 in. lxft Service Area Right Service Area 7 ft. 15 ft. d(in lines) t4ft a l{on-Volley E'a lbn-Yrlhyhne t $ I _0J (o o o-o- / :r{ '\\-- iJt \ il 1 G E(U T I I I \ \ I I\ \ \ It { Ia T I : 7, r( / l, 7 L I *! \ \ a Chanhassan \ t' l;!r- ..[{ l't 1:, : g IIa- - -!lP E I E EII T {I ! -