Why Senate Bill 1695 Should Concern You

For the 11th time in the past 13 years, the North Carolina (NC) Legislature is prepared once again to force bigger, heavier, longer combination trucks on more highways than ever before.

North Carolina Highways and Bridges Are Being Rapidly Destroyed By Bigger, Heavier Trucks, and Ordinary Taxpayers Foot the Bill:

  • Thirty-four (34) percent of NC’s roads are in poor or mediocre condition. American Society of Civil Engineers NC Infrastructure Report Card 2005 (ASCE Report Card 2005).
  • NC was warned in a four-part, major investigative news stories in 2005-2006 that overweight trucks are tearing up NC highways at an unprecedented rate. Raleigh News-Observer, May 22, 2005, re-published February 21, 2006 (Raleigh News-Observer 2005-2006).
  • According to the NC Department of Transportation in a 2006 study, heavy trucks are costing NC taxpayers at least $130 million each year and probably more in road and bridge destruction. Raleigh News-Observer 2005-2006.
  • Driving on NC’s crumbling roads costs NC motorists $1.7 billion each year in extra vehicle repairs and operating costs -- $282 for each motorist. ASCE Report Card 2005.
  • The majority of the cost of highway and bridge damage in NC is not paid for by truckers but by ordinary citizens using cars and pickup trucks. Raleigh News Observer 2005-2006; Addendum to Highway Cost Allocation Study, FHWA 2000.
  • North Carolina is plagued with older, crumbling bridges that are not being replaced or rehabilitated in a timely manner. On older roads where pending legislation would allow bigger, heavier trucks pulling 53-ft. semi-trailer, the state has 15,145 bridges of which 4,556, or 30 percent – one in three -- are functionally or structurally obsolete. Federal Highway Administration National Bridge Inventory (FHWA NBI 2007); ASCE 2005 Report Card.
  • According to a NC state highway engineer, about two bridges collapse in NC every year. Charlotte Observer, December 2, 2004.
  • More than 1,000 bridges in NC are being overstressed and left unprotected because they are used by extra-heavy trucks. Charlotte News-Observer 2005-2006.

Illegally Overweight Trucks Are Given a “Free Pass” in North Carolina Every Day Because There Is Little Enforcement of Weight Limits:

  • There is little legislative and judicial support for enforcing weight limits. For example, in 2005, NC state legislators cut the fines for some types of overweight trucks in half. Fines for overweight trucks have not been increased since 1981. Raleigh News Observer 2005-2006.
  • According to a major, comprehensive investigative news series in 2005-2006, NC weigh stations are underfunded, understaffed, are rapidly deteriorating, and have little effectiveness either in detecting overweight trucks or deterring overweight violations. Raleigh News Observer 2005-2006.

    • Ratcheting Up Truck Sizes and Weights Every Year In North Carolina Is Unsafe, Short-Sighted and Undermines Any Rational, Long-Range Transportation Planning:

    • NC State U. researchers recommended a rational approach to large truck safety in NC through coordination with the Governor, the NC State Highway Patrol, the state legislature, and the NC Trucking Association that includes open public participation in place of a legislative attempt to force longer, heavier trucks on lower class roads. NC State U. Study.
    • The pending legislative action to allow trucks with 53-ft. trailers directly conflicts with prior NC legislation that instructed the NCOSBM to develop a statewide, long-range transportation plan addressing NC’s long-term economic, mobility, and infrastructure needs. That NCOSBM analysis found that NC was badly lagging other states, including nearby states, in having a rational, well-planned logistics program that involves several major considerations, including highway safety. Statewide Logistics Plan for North Carolina – Final Report, North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management, May 13, 2008 (NCOSBM Report).
    • The NCOSBM report showed that NC highways and bridges were badly underfunded and that the state was not keeping pace with repairs and improvements to its deteriorating infrastructure. The report documented its shortfall in highway funds and repairs with several references to the National Transportation Policy and Revenue Commission study, Transportation for Tomorrow, published in December 2007.
    • The NCOSBM Report stated that current infrastructure quality and projected highway revenues cannot fulfill the expectations of the state legislature for the quality of surface transportation for NC over the long term. The result will be decreased economic productivity in the state, decreased employment, lower overall economic condition of residents, and poor attraction of business and industry. NCSOBM Report.

    North Carolina Lower Class Roads and Bridges Are Not Safe for Giant, Longer, Overweight Trucks:

    • One thousand five hundred forty-seven (1,547) people died in highway crashes in NC in 2005. Of these deaths, 204, or one of every 7 fatalities, were the result of large truck crashes. Traffic Safety Facts 2006, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA); National Center for Statistics and Analysis (NCSA), Special Truck Fatality Data Run 2008.
    • In 2005, North Carolina had the 5th highest number of truck fatalities in the U.S., outstripped only by Texas, California, Florida, and Georgia. NCSA Special Truck Fatality Data Run 2008.
    • In 2005, North Carolina had nearly twice as many large truck crash deaths than Virginia, its neighboring state, even though both states have almost the same amount of mileage on arterial highways off the Interstate system. FHWA Highway Statistics 2006.
    • More than 1,000 bridges in NC are being overstressed and left unprotected because they are used by extra-heavy trucks. Raleigh News-Observer, May 22, 2005, re-published February 21, 2006 (Raleigh News-Observer 2005-2006).
    • According to a NC state highway engineer, about two bridges collapse in NC every year. Charlotte Observer, December 2, 2004.
    • NC State University researchers in May 2008 used NCDOT Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System (TEAAS) date for the years 2001 through 2005 to investigate truck crashes off the Designated National Network (DNN) routes in NC and found that the chances of an off-DNN fatal truck crash was twice that of a crash taking place on the STAA network. Estimating the Off-Network Presence of STAA Dimensioned Vehicles on North Carolina Roadways Using CMV [Commercial Motor Vehicle] Crash Data, North Carolina State University, May 2008 (NC State University Study).
    • NC State University researchers concluded that extending the use of 53-foot semi-trailers to what are almost entirely narrow, two-lane, two-way roads on the remainder of what formerly was the U.S. Primary system routes in NC would substantially increase the chances of more large truck crashes on these roads. NC State University Study.
    • The researchers emphasized that a tractor pulling a typical 102-inch wide 53-ft. semi-trailer on a straight section of roadway “has only 9 inches of clearance between the center line on its left and the edge of the roadway on its right * *
    • It is clear that 10 ft travel lanes are not sufficient for these large vehicles.” Preliminary Observations of Truck Operations on Routes Added to North Carolina STAA Truck Network as a Result of 2008 Ruling by the North Carolina Attorney General’s Office, North Carolina State University Institute for Transportation Research and Education, and Inter-Agency Field Evaluation Team, April 2008 (NC State University Field Study).
    • Observations jointly conducted by the NC State Highway Patrol, the NC DOT, and the NC State University Institute for Transportation Research and Education, in cooperation with the NC Trucking Association, found that a combination truck pulling a 53-ft. semi-trailer frequently off-tracked over the double-yellow centerline into the path of opposing traffic and often involved the longer combination truck traveling entirely in the opposing lane. NC State University Field Study.

© Copyright 2007 Davis & McCabe, P.A. · All rights reserved.
Disclaimer · Site Map · IT Provided by: ConnectedNC · Login