By Peter A. Buxbaum The shaping of the latest U.S. surface transportation bill, currently being negotiated in a Senate-House conference committee, has exposed fissures in the transportation community, between truckers and shippers. Ironically, it has also fostered temporary unity between truckers and the railroad industry. At issue is a proposal to allow larger, 97,000-pound trucks and multi-trailers up to 120 feet long on the nation’s highways. Over a dozen states already permit use of the larger trucks. The current highway bill expires June 30. One early House draft of the highway bill, the multi-year federal authorization that usually passes with broad bipartisan support, included a provision that would have allowed the larger trucks. The measure was originally supported by the American Trucking Associations, the National Industrial Transportation League, and several large trucking companies as well as shippers. But opposition from the Association of American Railroads, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, and others caused the bill to be stalled. In February, a joint letter to Congress from the ATA and AAR urged passage of the highway bill without the provision for larger trucks. The two organizations “join together,” the letter said, “to urge members [of Congress] to oppose any floor amendments that would modify any of the truck size and weight provisions in the bill…” A subsequent position paper issued by the ATA supported a congressional study of the truck proposal, a move which would postpone consideration of approving larger trucks for at least a year. Several large trucking companies, such as Con-way Inc., were on record favoring the bigger trucks. The goal, according to Randy Mullett, the company’s vice president for government relations “is to find a way to make this part of the supply chain more efficient.” “Individual states are doing it in ways that have proven safe,” said Peter Gatti, executive vice president of the National Industrial Transportation League. Several large shippers issued fact sheets supporting the measure. The Chicago-based brewer MillerCoors said it could cut the number of trucks it deploys by 25 percent, reducing highway miles traveled by 1.15 million each week, its fuel bill by $181,000, and its carbon emissions by 4.5 million pounds. Kraft Foods said it would ship 66,000 fewer loads per year with the bigger trucks, decreasing truck miles by 33 million, and saving 6.6 million gallons of diesel fuel and 73,000 tons in carbon emissions. Campbell Soup Co. said it could cut its annual loads by 41,000, reduce vehicle miles by 23 million, and save 4 million gallons of fuel, thereby eliminating 39,000 tons of carbon from the atmosphere. International Paper Co. said its truck productivity would increase by 27 percent. But labor and rail groups opposed allowing the bigger trucks. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters opposed the measure, arguing that heavier loads would not necessarily mean fewer trucks. “Every time heavier trucks have been allowed, truck traffic increased because it becomes cheaper to ship by truck,” said James Hoffa, the union president. The Association of American Railroads (AAR) went even further, contending that the highway bill could have accelerated road and bridge damage if the big-truck proposal was left in. “It’s not fair for even more of the public’s tax dollars be used to pay for the road and bridge damage inflicted by massive trucks,” said AAR president Ed Hamberger. A U.S. Department of Transportation study noted that the additional costs to state and local governments to repairing bridge damage caused by raising truck weights to 97,000 pounds could be as much as $65 billion. The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association also opposed the proposal from its inception. “It’s a hard enough job to maneuver 80,000 pounds,” said Todd Spencer, OOIDA’s executive vice president. “No one knows better than the men and women who drive trucks for a living that heavier trucks can reduce safety margins