|
… along with some advice on what you can do about the problems.
By Ray Barnhart
|
With permission of Better Roads magazine where this article appeared in the
September 1997 issue.
The United States has spent billions of dollars to build the world’s safest and
most extensive highway network, and highway experts insist that billions more are
needed each and every year to improve and sustain it. In view of the excruciating
national debt, the increasing public demand for tax relief, and Congress’ reluctance
to curtail costly programs that are popular with voters, isn’t it time to face up
to the fact that highway spending will not continue unrestrained?
Certainly it’s unfair – and a betrayal of the trust part of the Highway Trust Fund
– that federal highway taxes are in effect impounded by Congress in order to finance
other governmental functions, for doing so denies to authorities the resources they
believe are necessary to meet transportation needs. Nonetheless, the highway funding
that Congress appropriates would be more than sufficient to meet deficiencies if
two fundamental conditions were met: (1) if the dollars were used solely for transportation
purposes; and (2) if state and federal laws emanated from sound engineering and
economic principles rather than from political expediencies.
Back to Top
President Clinton grandly announced that "the era of big government is over!"
And the nation cheered. But as skeptics (or are they realists?) say, "Mere
words do not public policy make."
The fact is that of all the highway reauthorization proposals offered thus far that
have any realistic chances of enactment, none do anything to diminish Trust Fund
diversions to non-transportation purposes; none do anything to lessen the waste
of time, money, and effort that’s expended in complying with federal regulations
that seem to be more concerned about form and procedures than with achieving a meaningful
end-product efficiently and fairly. And none do anything, or at least do very little,
to protect the huge amounts of capital that have already been invested in this essential
infrastructure.
Quite the contrary, state and federal laws actually encourage the premature destruction
of the highway infrastructure, and at a terrible annual cost.
Back to Top
The facts
To get to specifics, the highway systems in this country have been neither designed
nor constructed to accommodate the ever-increasing sizes and weights of commercial
trucks. Except in very rare instances, the fees that are charged these vehicles
for operating on the systems are arbitrary and bear no relationship to the costs
of the damage they cause. Engineers and economists can credibly calculate highway
costs that are attributable to those vehicles, but that isn’t done because the general
public is unaware of the gross inequity of fees paid by the various classes of vehicles,
and because the big truck lobbies are so politically powerful that they can maneuver
laws to serve their narrow financial interests. As a consequence, highway agencies
are forever struggling to meet their professional responsibilities.
In recent years more than $70 billion has been spent by the Federal Highway Administration.
Still, 60% of the major roads are in poor condition, and 30% of the bridges remain
classified as deficient. And un-programmed highway needs will require additional
billions of dollars.
Back to Top
The trucking industry denies that it’s responsible for the ever-increasing and costly
highway damage. It maintains that it pays far more than its proportionate share
to support the road system, and it insists that factors other than gross weights,
axle loadings, and axle spacings are the true causes of most highway deterioration.
Isn’t it time that highway professionals face reality? Time to demand that highway
laws and policies, both federal and state, be based upon sound engineering and economic
truths rather than on generalizations and rationalizations?
Is it possible that state legislatures and the U.S. Congress might hold hearings,
in public, on these technical issues, might gather testimony from recognized experts
in pavements, bridges, and economics – while under oath, laying their professional
credentials on the line – in order to objectively and publicly examine these critical
issues? If testimony should confirm that AASHTO standards for calculating bridge
stresses are correct, or that its axle loadings and spacings guidelines are valid,
or that fees should be relative to and based on ESAL values, shouldn’t public laws
addressing them be enforced? Or if they’re shown to be in error as truck lobbyists
assert, and expert testimony their position, should not the laws be modified accordingly.
Is it possible that truth might once again influence the formulation of public policy?
Back to Top
If the professional people charged with ensuring the viability of this vital transportation
network continue to focus more on simply gaining a bigger chunk of the free federal
pie for themselves rather than on making the wisest use of the moneys that are available,
how in the world can we ever expect to evolve a just, efficient, and cost-effective
highway policy?
For years we in this industry have preached the slogan that this is one of the greatest
government programs ever conceived – it’s a user program, and those who use the
system, pay for it. We just never told them that with increasing traffic volumes
and increasing payloads we’re ruining pavements faster than we can maintain them,
and incurring costs far in excess of available revenue. Is it too late to atone
for this dereliction, too late to bring equity to this most important function of
government?
If we have the courage and commitment to seriously try to reassert professional
standards as the driving forces behind transportation policy, programs at every
level of government might once again gain the respect of a cynical public. Who will
venture to translate such obvious principles into action? Undoubtedly very few will.
Except, perhaps for those courageous career professionals who have witnessed the
failure of highway policy, and who take the challenge of the inspiring Biblical
response: "Send me!" Is it too late for the highway community to face
reality.
Back to Top
What can you do about the problem?
The answer depends on your agency. At the state level, even if truck traffic meets
federal and state weight and other limits, there are several avenues to investigate:
1. Extend weighing station hours to ensure that trucks meet weight and other limits.
Stagger hours on a schedule that is not predictable.
2. Work with state and federal legislators to limit the weight allowed on all or
specific roads.
3. Design new roads or upgraded highways to better handle weight and size of today’s
commercial trucks.
4. Work for state and federal truck tax and fee increases that more adequately cover
the cost of damage done by these vehicles.
In state or city agencies, you can follow many of the guidelines above. Another
tactic is to post bridges and roads to reflect their designed capacity. If you follow
this path, it will be important to train local police to enforce this posting. Commercial
truck drivers often use city and/or county roads that were designed for nothing
heavier than a pickup or farm-to-market truck as a short cut, to avoid Interstate
construction, and so on, tearing up the street or road in the process. Work with
local governments to set fines that reflect the damage done by a heavy truck. High
fines will, if nothing else, encourage commercial truck drivers to find another
route.
Ray Barnhart is a consultant in Austin Texas, and is a former Federal Highway Administrator
Back to Top