pound axles? Why retrogress? Such restrictive legislation is not in keeping with our progressive American philosophy. It is usually suggested by a few reactionary highway engineers and those who seek to hamstring highway transport. Where would aviation be today if it was restricted to 1932 airfields? Many once busy airports are closed because they are now inadequate. Proponents of the 18,000 pound axle load will suggest longer vehicles and more axles thus spreading the load. This is fine in the Great Plains and the Rocky Mountain States, but how silly here in the East. Imagine a 65-foot long arrangement wheeling around the narrow streets of Baltimore, Boston, or lower Manhattan. Short lengths are imperative on our congested east coast. This limits the number of axles and cuts down the gross weight carried unless individual axle weights can be raised. All of the Northeastern States recognize this condition and permit 20,000-pound axles or better. Ten of the Northeastern States permit 22,000-pound axles or better; two, 25,000-pound axles. They do not penalize their industry and commerce. Why should the Congress? The CHAIRMAN. This bill makes an exception of those cases. I do not mean that Congress has not acted on this at all but this bill does not change what has been established in New England. Mr. HUFNAGEL. It sets a national pattern. The CHAIRMAN. No; it does not." Mr. HUFNAGEL. It will lead the States down to 20,000-pound axles. The CHAIRMAN. You have not read the bill. Mr. HUFNAGEL. I have it right here, sir. The CHAIRMAN. I wish you would read it sometime when you have. a little time. It does not do any of the things you say. Mr. HUFNAGEL. It is my understanding, sir, that a bill that once is established by Congress prevents States from increasing. If a State has an 18,000-pound axle weight The CHAIRMAN. I wish you would read the bill so that your understanding would be correct; but, go ahead. Mr. HUFNAGEL. In the past, Federal legislation could have proved helpful in raising the obnormally low weight limits in effect in Texas, Kentucky, and South Carolina. But when this was attempted, the fight went to the Supreme Court and South Carolina was upheld because it owned, built, and maintained its highways. When that progressive legislation failed because Federal statute might result in damage to State highways, should this restrictive legislation succeed when it will surely penalize the business and commerce within many States? In this connection, Mr. Thomas H. MacDonald, Commissioner of Public Roads, wrote in 1940: Where uniform limits less restrictive than those recommended in paragraph 5 are provided by State laws to govern intrastate movements in any two contiguous States or any larger group of contiguous States, limits imposed upon interstate traffic between such contiguous States should conform to the State laws. This clearly indicates that the Bureau of Public Roads fully appreciates the need for separate area consideration. One might well say: "If not S. 2363, what else? How can we obtain universal specifications?" Interchangeability in itself is desirable. No one will dispute that contention. If it is obtained, however, by retrogression and maintained by preventing progress, then the price is much too high. 96736-52-52 And now, especially, is no time for fixation since for the first time in many years new road designs are being developed and tested. The Bates road test was made in 1921. The next time a road was tested was in Maryland recently and the final report has not yet been released. Two additional new roads will soon be built specifically for test purposes, and highway engineers will then better know what a modern road will do. Shouldn't we wait before we act to freeze progress? Should we not let the new test be our guide? And in the meantime, let us build the best new roads we can: well drained, wide, and straight. These, all part of a basic primary highway system, will pull traffic off of the old, obsolete but still sound roads which will be quite good enough for local traffic. I am sure that we will find that the new system will easily carry axle loadings much greater than the 18,000 pounds proposed. Instead of this reactionary negative legislation based on standards. of 20 years ago, we may then be able to devise a progressive lawif it is needed at all-and thus prevent restriction to our expanding horizons. Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to add a word to what Mr. Hufnagel has said. I think that the real danger in the bill as written is that there will be a tremendous drive in the State legislatures, where the axle loadings are now permitted in excess of 18,000 pounds, to lower them to the 18,000-pound axle-load limit which is set in this bill. The CHAIRMAN. Of course you have the right to speculate from now to doomsday, but there is nothing in the bill that would do that at all. Mr. KELLER. I think that is quite true, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The bill says that this paragraph shall not apply in any State which permits by law an axle load as defined in excess of 18,000 pounds. If that is going to cause all the States to be hysterical and commence doing crazy things, your speculation, of course, is very plausible. Mr. KELLER. It was more, if I may say so, than speculation in Maryland last year. The Maryland Legislature was under terrific pressure to reduce their axle loads to 18,000 pounds. They now permit 22-4 and in spite of the terrific pressure and in spite of the road tests and perhaps in respect to the findings of the Maryland road tests, the legislature rejected the requests to lower the limits and left them at 22-4. The CHAIRMAN. You are not blaming that attitude in Maryland to this bill, are you? Mr. KELLER. No, sir. The bill was not introduced at that time. The CHAIRMAN. It was not introduced, it was not law at that time, so your speculation is rather far-fetched, but anyway you are entitled to your views and we appreciate having your views on this subject. The purpose back of S.2363, whether it will get the job done or not, is to protect the highways of this country in which we have invested billions and in which we are going to have to invest more billions, and which are only partly paid for by the truck users. The passenger cars pay most of the bill, but perhaps, as Mr. Hufnagel has suggested, we may build toll roads, and I hope we do, from one end of the country to the other which will permit these motor freight trains to move over the highways. In that case, they will pay for the use of the highway and I think that will be a happy situa tion for everybody concerned. We will use these other roads, many of which were built 20 years ago, which the people of this country have been unable, with their limited funds, to replace. This will preserve those roads for the local use that Mr. Hufnagel has suggested. If we are going to have the kind of roads that Mr. Hufnagel wants, someone will have to put up the money to build those roads. Let us not ask the little car owner to pay most of the bill and then restrict him, when he wants to go places on that highway, to driving behind some great big slow-moving truck for many, many miles. That is the problem. This bill is designed to preserve roads and to limit the traffic on the roads to the amount of traffic they can carry. There may be a wide difference between the purpose of a bill and what it may accomplish, but the purposes I think are good. Whether they will accomplish their purposes or not is a question, and on those points we do welcome your testimony, but please do not come in here and start calling us names, because we are trying to protect an investment by the people of billions of dollars. Mr. KELLER. We surely, Mr. Chairman, have no such intention and we greatly appreciate the courtesy and attention which you have given our views, and that completes our presentation. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Thank you very much UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a. m. in room G-16, United States Capitol, Senator Edwin C. Johnson of Colorado (chairman) presiding. Present: Senator Johnson of Colorado. Also present: E. R. Jelsma, staff director of Subcommittee on Domestic Land and Water Transportation. STATEMENT OF EARL B. SMITH, VICE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR OF TRAFFIC, GENERAL MILLS, INC., MINNEAPOLIS, MINN., ON BEHALF OF THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES Mr. SMITH. The Chamber of Commerce of the United States is opposed to S. 2363, which proposes maximum dimensions and weights for motor vehicles subject to part II of the Interstate Commerce Act, unless specifically exempted by the Interstate Commerce Commission. The chamber feels that it would be improper for the Federal Government to dictate to State governments as to the size and weight of vehicles they should permit to operate over their State highways. Roads primarily are designed, built, and paid for locally, and each State should be fully capable of determining what sizes and weights. can be borne in safety of its own roads. Although the chamber has no policy for or against national uniformity in standards, it seems to me that the arbitrary limitation of sizes and weights to a national standard ceiling might work a distinct hardship on transportation in those States that are building their roads to accommodate bigger and heavier vehicles. Different regions of the country have different characteristics, and consequently our roads have not developed uniformly. It does not appear economical to hold back transportation in certain sections that can provide for bigger vehicles, just for the sake of an arbitrary standard. However, we feel that in the final analysis, it is up to the States to decide on this matter either individually or jointly. In this connection it seems pertinent to note that the 12 Northeastern States comprising the area of greatest industrial concentration are those where axle-load limits are above 18,000 pounds, the limit recommended in S. 2363. The CHAIRMAN. I wonder if the witness has read the bill? I The CHAIRMAN. Well, I would like to have him read it again. would like to have him turn to page 3 of the bill and read the last paragraph. Mr. SMITH (reading): Provided, That this paragraph shall not apply in any State permitting by law an axle load as herein defined in excess of 18,000 pounds. We are perfectly aware of this provision in the bill which excepts any State from the 18,000-pound limit. But the bill is obviously aimed at federally imposed and uniform maximum size and weight limits. The analogy of higher axle limits with the high industrial activity in the Northeastern States was meant only to indicate that differences in size and weight standards may be necessary to attainment of maximum productivity. This is pertinent to the proposed legislation which seeks to establish a national ceiling on sizes, and, by indirection, on axle weights as well. STATEMENT OF R. E. BEISER, GENERAL MANAGER, NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE TRANSPORTERS ASSOCIATION, INC. Mr. BEISER. I would like to add a word or two with respect to S. 2363. I have been asked to also state the position of our carrier members concerning Senate bill 2363. We believe that matters concerning sizes and weights of motor vehicles should be left to the jurisdiction of the various States. The preculiarities and different conditions. which are involved in the establishment of size and weight restrictions. vary in different sections and territories. We refer, of course, to such factors as terrain, highway construction, bridge construction, area congestion, et cetera. Specifically we oppose that part of the bill which would limit overall height of a vehicle either unladen or including load to 12 feet 6 inches. The passage of such a measure would have a disastrous effect upon the automobile transport industry on a Nation-wide basis. In the analysis of S. 2363 which was forwarded to us along with copies of the bill, it is stated and we quote from the analysis: The commonly accepted standard of vertical clearance for highway bridges and underpasses is 14 feet. For this reason, 12 feet 6 inches is the maximum height limitation allowed by 34 States, and is the limit set by this bill. Although there are only 15 States which permit loads in excess of 12 feet 6 inches, there are also 19 other States where progressive and cooperative legislative bodies have recognized the requirements of our It specific industry and have given special treatment to our problems. is now possible to operate our loaded vehicles to 13 feet 6 inches in practically all of the States and in several instances even beyond such limitations so that the States holding to the 12-feet 6-inch limitation insofar as this industry is concerned are very much in the minority. I have before me size and weight charts as prepared by the research department of the American Trucking Associations, from which I quote the above statistics. We point out that the type of vehicle and the commodity which we transport creates neither a problem concerning vehicle length nor do we carry excessive weight. A statement by Thomas H. McDonald contained in the booklet published in 1951 by the Department of Commerce, Bureau of Public Roads, we believe is an endorsement of our contention. We quote from page 51 of that record in part: For those who mistakenly confuse large size of vehicles with excessive weight the table may hold some surprises. For example, the large automobile transport vehicles appear frequently among the vehicles weighed but with remarkable rarity are found in excess of the weight limits. We believe that consideration should be given to the fact that the extremely low center of gravity and other safety factors which are engineered and incorporated into the type trailer in general use throughout our industry, plus an intensive accident-prevention activity, of not only our association but all of our carriers has made it possible for our segment of the industry to be among the very safest. We are expanding and intensifying that activity constantly. It is impossible to confine our vehicle loads to conform with 12-feet 6-inch limitations because of automobile-construction peculiarities over which we have no control. We believe that not only our industry but other allied segments of the automotive industry would be injured without reason or justification by the passage of this bill in its present form. The CHAIRMAN. We thank you. Mr. BEISER. Mr. Chairman, we certainly appreciate the opportunity of presenting it to you. UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, Washington, D. C., Tuesday, April 1, 1952. The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a. m., in room. G-16, United States Capitol, Senator Edwin C. Johnson of Colorado (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Johnson of Colorado and Bricker. Also present: E. R. Jelsma, staff director of Subcommittee on Domestic Land and Water Transportation. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Ernie Adamson. STATEMENT OF ERNIE ADAMSON, ATTORNEY, PITTSBURGH, PA. Mr. ADAMSON. My name is Ernie Adamson, 100 Academy Avenue, Pittsburgh 28, Pa. (The witness also testified on S. 2348.) |