Email this page
Print this page
Comments
First, what exactly is a six-axle combination vehicle? Is it really the monster it is purported to be? From a size standpoint, the answer is no: These vehicles are the same physical size as other combination vehicles. The tractors and trailers are the same length and width as five-axle combination vehicles. There is merely an additional axle to distribute the load across, and an extra set of brakes to stop the vehicle. This additional axle and set of brakes mean the vehicle is engineered to safely carry more weight.
Why do these trucks need to carry additional weight? The answer to that question requires an understanding of Maine’s transportation history. In the mid-1970s, log drives were ended in Maine rivers for environmental reasons. Also, during the late ’60s and early ’70s, railroad companies removed tracks from non-profitable areas in the state. Both of these events placed pressure on getting raw material to Maine’s pulp and paper mills. The only option left was trucks.
At that time, the primary vehicle used for getting forest products to the mills was the four-axle straight truck. This vehicle could operate at a gross weight of 79,600 (including tolerance) pounds and had an allowable tri-axle weight limit of 64,000 pounds, if it was transporting forest products.
However, due to the high axle-weight allowance, this vehicle was seen as doing considerable damage to the highways. An advisory committee was formed in the early 1980s, consisting of representatives of the Maine Department of Transportation, Maine State Police, and the trucking industry, to investigate possible alternatives to this vehicle. The alternative would have to be as safe, do no more damage to the highways, and be as productive as those in use at that time. The solution was the six-axle, 100,000-pound combination of a three-axle tractor and a three-axle trailer. It was signed into law in 1983.
Three years later, the following statement was made in the final report of the Truck Advisory Committee: “Since its introduction as a practical vehicle in 1983, the six-axle combination vehicle has proved very popular in the forest-products and other industries. This vehicle is both more productive and less damaging than single-unit trucks operating at the commodity-permit-tolerance limit, and its use should be encouraged.”
Advertisement
In the 20 years since, this vehicle has been operating safely on Maine secondary roads and the Maine Turnpike. A 2004 impact study done for the Maine DOT and Maine Turnpike Authority added to the 1986 findings by determining that quantifiable economic benefits would result if Maine’s weight limits were applied to Maine’s interstate highway system. The study concluded Maine taxpayers would save between $1.7 million and $2.3 million each year in pavement/bridge maintenance and rehabilitation costs if we allowed these vehicles on the interstate.
But the weight limit issue isn’t only saving money, it’s about safety, right? And isn’t a bigger rig harder to control? Yes, the weight limit issue is also about safety. By distributing the truck’s load over six axles and adding an extra set of brakes, these 100,000-pound vehicles are as safe to operate as their 80,000-pound, five-axle counterparts. But their higher weight capacity results in several advantages, both safety-wise and money-wise.
First, higher weight capacities mean it takes fewer vehicles to move the same amount of freight. Not only are these loads more economical, but using them also results in fewer trucks on the road. By taking the next step in getting these vehicles off Maine’s secondary roads and allowing them to travel on the interstate system that was designed to handle them, there will be even fewer interactions with other moving vehicles, including cars, motorcycles, and school buses, and with pedestrians. The 2004 study referenced earlier predicted such a move would reduce annual crashes by 3.2 crashes per year.
Fewer trucks also mean less fuel consumption, leading to fewer emissions and decreasing our dependency on foreign oil. Since diesel fuel and home heating oil are essentially the same fuel, use of these higher-capacity vehicles increases the inventory of heating oil. Allowing them on the interstate system would further save fuel consumption because these vehicles burn less fuel when operating at a constant speed as opposed to starting and stopping continually. Also, the secondary road routes are generally longer, requiring more fuel and resulting in more emissions.
Allowing six-axle trucks on the Maine interstate would also reduce traffic congestion in communities situated along the interstate system, where these trucks are now forced to travel. One prime before-and-after example of such congestion is the city of Augusta. Call any Augusta official and ask if they’ve noticed a reduction in truck traffic after the third bridge was opened to 100,000-pound, six-axle combinations.
Maine is known for its independence, but in the case of truck weight limits on the interstate, it’s working against us. We are surrounded by states and provinces that allow these truck weights or higher on their interstate systems. New Hampshire allows 99,000 pounds on six-axle combinations. Massachusetts has allowed 99,000 pounds on five-axle combinations for 50 years on their interstate system. The Canadian provinces to our north and west allow over 108,000 pounds on six axles. Yet when they enter Maine, all of these vehicles are forced to exit the federal interstate transit system and travel on our rural roads and through the center of our towns and cities.
It is important to us all, then, that Congress takes action to extend the current weight limit exemption to include all interstate highways in Maine, not just on the Maine Turnpike. Support for this proposal includes groups you would expect like trucking, oil dealers, forest products industries, farmers, and average Maine citizens, but it also finds support from municipalities, the Maine DOT, the mayor of Bangor, and Maine’s entire delegation to the United States Congress.
In this day and age of partisanship, you may be wondering how an issue that has previously been characterized as divisive could find Republicans and Democrats, as well as local and state officials, on the same side. Facts, that’s how.
