There are several very obvious reason which necessitate raising the federal Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) limits from 80,000 to 97,000 pounds with the addition of a sixth axle. These range from helping to solve safety concerns to helping produce cleaner air.

The first myth we must address is that raising GVW will affect the quality of our federal highways. Generally speaking, highway infrastructure deterioration is associated with the individual axle weight of a vehicle, not the overall vehicle weight. By adding a sixth axle, this would balance out. Likewise, federal roads are usually built to more strict specifications than state and local roads, thus meaning economically it just makes more sense.

File Photo.

Perhaps the most important issue though is that allowing higher GVW weights onto federal roads enables the drivers to select more direct routes to their destination, and decrease the total miles they will travel. This means that the total road wear—both state and federal—will be reduced. State road budgets usually share expenses with the federal Department of Transportation, so this expense will decrease.

Higher GVW’s would also reduce road traffic. It would allow for the consolidation of loads, meaning less trips would be necessary. The benefits of this are plentiful and obvious. In the context of road maintenance it means that the total vehicle miles traveled by trucks on both the federal and local roads would drop, reducing wear and tear.

This leads us to our next point which is reducing fuel consumption. More direct routes and less trips obviously translates into a decrease in fuel. Among other things this is a cost savings that can be passed onto consumers. A recent study at the University of Georgia recently indicated that with logging trucks, an increase in the GVWs would translate into a cost savings of 18-percent.

While it might be unnecessary to point this out, lower fuel consumption also will lead to (among other things) decreasing our dependency on foreign oil, and cleaner air. Safety is another serious issue which would benefit from increasing the limits. The first way this would happen is that several urban bypass routes would become available to truck drivers. This would allow them to avoid population centers. Decreased contact means a decreased chance for accidents. Bikers, walkers, and joggers are just a few of the groups which come to mind that would probably enjoy less truck traffic.

There would also be a ripple effect in the trucking world. Fewer drivers would be needed. This would eventually lead to the least qualified drivers being “shaken out” of the pool. Many people wonder why we need trucking at all when we have access to railroads. The truth is that railroads are efficient in long-haul situations. In many instances, such as with agricultural products and logging, relatively short hauling distances—under 150 miles—are required. Also, many of these operations are mobile. In the case of logging the best case scenario would be that railroads could be used to get logs from a concentration sight or chipping sight to the mill. To get those logs from the forest to those sights however, requires the use of trucks. In other words—every log needs to be trucked for at least part of its journey to the mill.

The last criticism and main sticking point of increasing GVWs comes from the use of bridges. To be fair it should be pointed out that individual bridges would have to be evaluated and posted—or improved—as appropriate. Many of the other criteria mentioned above though would also apply in this situation.

The reasons to increase GVW’s are plentiful. At a state level it has generally met with enthusiastic acceptance from all political parties. It has been delayed at the federal level. The reasons for these delays are foggy. Hopefully, our politicians in Washington recognize the needs of the working people of Vermont and will help push this into law.

Steve Ames is a regular contributor to Livin’ Magazine. He credits the Forest Resource Association for providing much of the information in this article.