Transportation Equity Act - A Legacy For Users

TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT: A LEGACY FOR USERS -- (House of Representatives - April 01, 2004)

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 593 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 3550.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and with all due respect to my colleague from New Hampshire, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
This amendment is about opening the door to allow bigger and bigger trucks on our interstate highway system. And although this amendment is drafted in a form that appears to apply only to the State of New Hampshire, its impact will reach all States, all taxpayers, and all motorists.

Allowing these superheavy trucks on the interstates in New Hampshire would cause substantial bridge damage, cost the taxpayers money, and threaten the safety of motorists, and not just impacting the people of New Hampshire but people all across this country.

Let me explain. Operating 99,000-pound trucks on New Hampshire's interstates would require replacing and strengthening interstate bridges, at a huge cost to taxpayers all over this country. Heavier single tractor trailer trucks do not pay for all the damage they do to roadways. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, a 100,000-pound six-axle single tractor-trailer truck pays only 40 percent. Taxpayers pay the rest. Not just taxpayers in New Hampshire, but all across this country.

Heavier singles pose numerous safety risks. As weights go from 65,000 to 80,000 pounds, the risk of an accident involving a fatality goes up 50 percent. In addition, these superheavy trucks will have added braking and steering problems and the risk for rollover will increase.

Now, I believe that 80,000 pounds is enough on the interstate, on urban connectors, and all roads. So there are consequences here that go far beyond what the gentleman has outlined. So while I have great respect for him, and I understand his concern about safety, I think the debate should be about the fact that these trucks get bigger and bigger and bigger. I think that is what poses the safety risks to the people of New Hampshire and people all over the country.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleague from New Hampshire that the difference between Massachusetts and New Hampshire is that the trucks that he is referring to operate on toll roads, and the taxpayers of Massachusetts are paying for the damage that is done by these heavier trucks on these roads, not the taxpayers across the country. That is a major difference.
Again, I oppose this amendment for all the reasons that I stated, and I would simply remind my colleagues that this bill that we have before us today is underfunded. It does not meet all of what DOT says we need to have to be able to maintain the status quo in terms of maintaining our transportation infrastructure.

This, in my opinion, opens the door to bigger trucks, not only in New Hampshire but in other parts of the country as well.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT