Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, November 22, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 32
32.
consider and take appropriate action on letter to senators hutchison and cornyn regarding federal trucking weight limit legislation.
>> good morning judge Biscoe, members of the court.
I am with the intergovernmental relations officer with the county.
there are two pieces of legislation that have been introduced in the united states senate having to do with trucking weight limits.
the current federal truck weight limit is 80,000 pounds which is a very heavy --
>> twenty-seven --
>> I am sorry, 80,000 pounds which is 40 tons and that's quite a considerable weight and there are proposals to raise that up to as much as 100,000 pounds as a matter of well settled information about road maintenance, trucks do put extraordinary damage to roads, just because of their weight and because of how they move on the roads.
they do a lot of damage to roads.
in fact, the average 18 wheeler truck does as much damage to a road as 9,600 cars do.
so overweight trucks cause even more damage and, in fact, a truck traveling with 100,000-pound load does almost twice as much damage as a truck with an 80,000-pound load.
we, therefore, recommending to the court that the court send letters to senators hutchison and cornyn asking them to appose the legislation that would have a so called demonstration project.
the demonstration project, ask the state to keep records on traffic safety issues but makes the project permanent unless the state can meet the burden in showing it has had adverse impact on traffic safety, so it is not really a pilot project where you go back, evaluate and everything resets to zero, it is really, this will be the law unless we are -- unless we receive evidence to the contrary.
the other piece of legislation that we are asking the court to express its support for is s876, which is by senator frank lonberg and that would freeze the current limits in place so that on the national highway system, you would not see trucks over 80,000 pounds.
that is -- of course we are talking about the national highway system but these trucks also travel on our state and local highway systems as well.
>> do we know what -- how much has been assessed of the damage that has been done when these particular trucks come off the federal highway system and encroach on to other systems, especially with the weight, as far as the road infrastructure goes?
has that been condition -- has there been an accounting of what that actually is, assessment, because we are looking at maybe a 40-ton situation to a 50-ton situation propose and larger are allowed to stay at 40-ton weight limit for trucks but my question is, off the highway system, these trucks don't normally stay on the highway system.
they venture off.
so my question is, has there been national assessment that has been done to allow us some kind of inkling that allows for the road and the infrastructure of damage to those roads that is not on the national highway system?
>> right.
in your backup, there is a reference to a study done by the american association of state highway transportation officials, and they concluded exactly what dee just read to you.
it is not an arithmetic reduction in the condition.
it is geometric and we cannot afford to have those types of loads placed our roads that are already falling apart, particularly like in the 130 corridor but we are getting calls on people in the county, mostly on eastside, that because of the drought conditions, the roads are having -- we are having more and more table troue with the roads.
>> what I am trying to get to, though, this has state implication throughout the state of Texas, however with Travis County, narrowing it down to Travis County, have we had a monitored assessment of looking at what that damage may be overall as far as what has taken place on those roads that are not on the national highway system by these trucks?
in other words, just an example, per se --
>> sure.
>> I am not trying to get specific enough but I want to make sure we are in the ballpark of some figure, because this is -- this is an actual implication.
we aren't just talking about the state of Texas.
we are talking about all across the country, per se, but in the national arena, you are looking at the state of Texas of how the national highway system.
however, their offshoot that affect all 254 counties within the state of Texas.
>> yes, sir, and we do have a paper management system that helps us track conditions of the pavement throughout the county and we do know, for example, that along the 130 corridor, pavement is deteriorating much quicker than in other areas carrying similar traffic, with all of the truck traffic on it.
we do have costs associated with that I don't have a figure to give to you today but we do present to you annually our request for funding to help pay for reconstruction.
right now, we get about 11 million-dollars a year for the entire bridge operation and maintenance of the roads.
that helps us keep our conditions fairly steady but it doesn't address the roads that are already in poor or very bad condition.
but I can get you some cost figures for that.
>> I guess if we want to pursue and go forward, it would probably be good if we -- if the court decides to keep the status quo, per se, but even the status quo is doing damage.
to have a cost figure for what it is costing the taxpayers to -- to maintain these roads after the damage has been done.
you know, it just appeared that that should go along with what we are doing here.
>> we can put some numbers together.
>> okay.
thank you.
>> and Commissioner, when I was researching the issue, I know I saw a study that I believe was from 2005 or 2006 that suggest that nationwide the damages in the billions of dollars a year.
>> billions?
>> billions, yes, sir.
>> all right.
>> but I don't know -- I have not seen anything for the state of Texas and steve, of course, would know better than I if we have a specific damage estimate for Travis County.
>> okay.
>> so are the federal federal officials looking at traffic safety?
we seem to be looking at the cost.
>> the specific language asks the state to monitor traffic safety concerns caused by increase in the loads.
so if there were more accidents, I assume that that kind of data would be kept and would be reported, but not necessarily damage to roads.
and, also, the legislation sent f1415 has no provision in it about being able to raise truck fee or weight fees in order to accommodate the increased weight of the traffic on the roads.
should the letter say something about traffic safety.
the thing about damage to roads, fine, but if they are looking at traffic safety, shouldn't we -- even if we have to exaggerate a little bit, should we --
>> I agree, judge, it is just --
>> if the damage gets bad enough and the pavement, we get calls from folks saying they are bottling out on roadways.
so, yes, safety is absolutely --
>> I put it in the letter.
is it the same thing you see with naco?
>> this letter is based on the letter that they suggested as a draft letter but had some information added to it.
>> and I take it that we need to get this letter out as soon as we can if we plan to send it?
>> I think that the court -- I think it is always timely but I doubt if much is going to happen between now and the end of the year in the congress with respect to this particular legislation.
>> so I would -- I would prefer bringing a letter back to the court that everybody has had a chance to look at and maybe have the court adopt that next week.
>> I can understand why we would send it to our two senators, but if you do the letter, why would you send it to the other senators, too?
I am surely interested in finding what we are thinking here in Texas.
>> I am sure they are, judge, and you suggest we move it to members of commerce signs and technology committee which is the committee in which both of these pieces of legislation are currently pending.
>> I have a question, too, because it might be something you put in the letter.
aren't we not, in Texas and the other border states with mexico, looking at increased truck traffic from the expansion of some of the nafta?
>> absolutely.
>> so on top of just what's been usual, we may have additional truck traffic out of mexico that's significant, which is exponential which is ha we are looking at here if we increase the loads.
>> on the interstate system, eventually they have come off to unload but most of them are passing through on the interstate.
>> what action do you need today?
pat on the back and tell you to see you soon?
>> I think the need back the court has given on what the letter should include has been very helpful and we will come back next week with new draft language for the letters.
>> see you next week.
>> if our roads are not in good conditions and especially outside of the city, there are no street lights and folks travel those at night and we have had accidents out there and people have been killed, and so I would think that that's part of the safety that is tied to the condition of our -- of our roads and especially when they are affected by trucks, you know, and they increase that weight, that's going to be worse.
so I would say that I am concerned about the safety of our folks, our constituents, due to the condition of roads by heavy truck weight.
so, I mean, we -- I think we can show those records that, we have had some fatalities.
>> okay.
we can pull up.
>> okay.
>> we eagerly anticipate our follow-up discussion.
>> thank you very much.
>> we will have it on next week.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
