Of course, as chairman of the Commerce Committee, I am constantly amazed at this set of figures which demonstrates that, as our population increases, our freight tonnage per capita increases and this obviously affects all modes of transportation.

1

Highway transportation is the most critical area for improvement in our transportation system. I say this advisedly because, as shown by the four maps which I will submit along with these, two more, railroad mileage has been continually decreasing; it is down 15 percent since 1930. Improved highway mileage during that time increased 322 percent. As a nation, almost three-fourths of our freight dollars are expended on highway movement.

The freeze items in the 1956 act were derived from standards developed in 1946 and earlier, even though the 1956 act provided that geometric and construction standards should be adequate for types and volumes of traffic anticipated in 1975. A few years ago, that was changed so that the anticipated date should be 20 years from time of authorization.

If we are building the Interstate System today to be adequate in 1988, then I think we are simply shutting our eyes to the facts when we continue to permit construction on the basis of standards developed in 1946 or before. This situation must be corrected as soon as possible by permitting the development and projection of more efficient highway freight vehicles within the higher limits suggested.

I was a member of my State legislature and I know, I think the distinguished chairman understands this, too; he was a member of the State legislature, too, at one time-that I think the States adequately manage their highway resources pretty carefully and I am sure that all State bodies do; I have great confidence in them.

Furthermore, we have given the Commerce Committee adequate authority to depart from the transportation through the Federal Highway Administrator and the Bureau of Public Roads to advise and consult with the States in planning the best possible utilization, construction and maintenance of our highways.

Thus, the current Federal standards have the effect of limiting economic development in regions such as the West where a significant number of marginal industries can be made profitable through improved transportation capacity. They must be given this capability if our economy is to meet the demands of expansion. I have in mind basic industries which are found, not only in the West, but throughout the Nation and each of which is important in its local setting. Milk and dairy products, grains, fruits and vegetables, livestock, logging in my State, and forest products, minerals, petroleum products, sugar beets, soy beans, cotton-the list is almost inexhaustible.

Yet, there should be added the various manufacturing industries and defense installations dispersed throughout the country whose chief transportation cost is represented by highway movement. It is essential that we plan for the future.

I understand that the president of the Automobile Association appeared and voiced his concern regarding the safety aspects of this proposal. Well, I can think of no one, Mr. Chairman, that has been more active in safety than the Commerce Committee of the United States Senate. We are concerned with safety.

1 Filed with the committee.

I point out to the committee in this connection that the Commerce Committee has held long, constant, and searching inquiries into the safety of vehicles and we have vested in the Department of Transportation and the Highway Safety Administrator, Dr. Haddon, in my opinion, full power to deal with the subject. I am sure that the States will give adequate consideration to the same problem.

I call your attention to one additional matter which the Commerce Committee is most seriously engaged in at this moment, the continued development of containerization of freight by maritime, air, rail, and highway carriers. Unless the loads to be carried on the highway can be compatible with the container loadings handled by other modesair, water, and rail-the country as a whole will be deprived of the full benefits of our rapid development and improvement in the transportation systems. The States should be permitted to facilitate these programs as they develop.

So, I think the bill is an effort to make more uniform and more realistic sizes and weights throughout the country to deal with our economy as it expands.

Senator SPONG. Thank you very much, Senator Magnuson.

As you have mentioned, your Commerce Committee is concerned with the regulation of all modes of transportation, as well as with the safety of all vehicles manufactured for highways.

Do you believe that the States and the Federal Government presently have sufficient legislative authority to require the use of adequate power units and proper brakes?

Senator MAGNUSON. Well, I believe they do. We are feeling our way a little, as it were, because, as you know, the chairman knows the auto safety bill was just passed and I find that there is a great deal of coordination between the States and the Federal Highway Administrator and the Safety Board.

There is a separate Safety Board down there to coordinate these things and to ask the States to join with standards, and I think that anything relating to commerce trucking will be considered very deeply and seriously.

I think uniformity itself, throughout the country, on sizes and weights would be a step toward more safety. You can handle it easier when it is all uniform and when there is no difference in different areas and this is what we are trying to achieve. I think the passage of this bill will increase the safety on the highways.

You asked directly if they have not full authority. We are going to review the auto safety bill, I think, in the next 3 weeks. We have set hearings and have invited the Department of Transportation, which is comparatively new, to suggest what amendments to the bill they think are going to be necessary to do the job we are talking about if they do not now exist.

Senator SPONG. That is right.

The Bureau of Public Roads suggested limits of 20,000 for single axles and 34,000 for tandem axles.

As chairman of the Commerce Committee, would a limit of 34,000 pounds on tandem axles instead of 36,000 pounds as set forth in the bill have an adverse effect on commerce? The Bureau of Public Roads suggested 2,000 pounds less for tandem axles.

Senator MAGNUSON. Well, I am no expert on this; I only know what these people talk about. I think we can work that out.

I don't know whether one figure is good or the other, but I do make a plea for uniformity, whatever figure you adopt.

think the safety aspects should be considered seriously but we have been seriously handicapped because of this difference, this disparity.

In the long time it took-this committee was hopeful that within 3 years we would do this job and it stretched into 8 years and then there has been this delay since they passed the first act. I am hopeful you will look very favorably upon this bill.

Senator SPONG. You have twice mentioned the desire for uniformity. Do you see any possible deterrent to this in the permissiveness of this legislation?

Senator MAGNUSON. No, I don't. I think we will gradually work it out. If it is not made mandatory and then can do it this other way, it becomes much easier to enforce than if you have mandatory provisions.

As many of us know, in this legislative business if we can get some voluntary compliance it is usually stronger than the mandatory compliance.

Senator SPONG. Thank you very much, Senator Magnuson.

Senator MAGNUSON. We have a lot of letters and communications from practically everyone-shippers, officials, Governors, legislators that handle this, transportation committees and their various legislators, and, generally speaking, most of the industry in the West, which is so dependent upon this mode of transportation.

Senator SPONG. Thank you very much. We are very pleased to have had you.

Senator MAGNUSON. Thank you.

Senator SPONG. At this point in the record I will place the statement of Senator Alan Bible of Nevada.

(The statement is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ALAN BIBLE, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA

Mr. Chairman, last November, I was delighted to join with the distinguished Senator from Washington, Senator Magnuson, as a co-sponsor of the measure now before your committee.

At the time of introduction of this measure, I stated that vehicle limitations placed in the 1956 Federal-Aid Highway Act with respect to weights and measures were outmoded and needed to be revised in line with our new up-to-date and more modern highways. I am just as sure today as I was in November that this is a correct statement and I am hopeful this Committee will act favorably upon this bill.

Representatives of the Nevada Motor Transport Association and individual trucking, mining, and ranching interests have discussed this problem with me on innumerable occasions. They have impressed upon me the need for removing the embargo placed by Federal legislation on the individual States, which now limits the weight and width of trucks and has actually frozen these out-of-date State standards in this industry.

Many of our Western States, including Nevada, have not had the opportunity to revise these standards for some 11 years, although as exists in my States, standards set by the Nevada Legislature years ago, are well below those in many of the Eastern States, including the Disrict of Columbia. This restriction has worked a hardship on the trucking industry, and mining industry, and the livestock industry in Nevada.

Single-axle limitations in Nevada now preclude trucks from hauling cargo with over 18,000 pounds of weight. Other States exceed these limits by 4,000 pounds or more. Tandem-axle limitations are 32,000 pounds while other States exceed these limits by as much as 8,000 pounds. Width limitations, once a problem with respect to narrow highways and bridges, also are outmoded with the superhighways and more modern bridges.

This bill does not permit the Federal Government to make the necessary changes. It does permit the State legislatures in the various States to revise statutes and bring weights and measures up to those standards which they believe are desirable to meet the needs of the trucking industry and still be within safe and reasonable limits.

I was one of a number of western Senators who joined with Senator Magnuson, and others, over 3 years ago, when we called this problem to the attention of the Secretary of Commerce.

There has been no action since this time at the Federal level. It seems reasonable and imperative that we pass legislation which will permit the States to revise their statutes and let the trucking industry upgrade their standards to where at least the industry can become more competitive.

Regulation of vehicle sizes and weights, as Senator Magnuson has stated, are properly and traditionally the responsibility of the individual States. I believe this responsibility should be returned to the States.

Federal limitations imposed in 1956 are much too restrictive with the newly improved highways and more efficient vehicles now existent.

It is my further information that officials of the motor transport association in Nevada have held many conferences with our very able director of the Nevada Highway Department and other State officials. I am advised they are ready and willing to make recommendations at the State level to revise present State laws and see that the vital trucking industry in our State is given the latitude it needs, and should have, without doing any damage to our excellent highway system. I strongly endorse this bill and recommend favorable action.

Senator SPONG. These hearings will recess until we hear from the Department of Transportation. The time will be announced later. Thank you.

(Whereupon, at 10:30 a.m., the subcommittee recessed subject to call of the Chair.)

VEHICLE SIZES AND WEIGHTS

THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 1968

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ROADS OF THE
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,
Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 9 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 4200, New Senate Office Building, Senator J. Caleb Boggs presiding.

Present: Senator Boggs.

Also present: Richard B. Royce, chief clerk and staff director; M. Barry Meyer, committee counsel; and Martin Baker, staff assistant. Senator BOGGS. The committee will come to order.

We are happy to have this morning Mr. Lowell K. Bridwell, Federal Highway Administrator, Department of Transportation. Mr. Bridwell, will you identify your associates for the record.

STATEMENT OF LOWELL K. BRIDWELL, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; ACCOMPANIED BY FRANK C. TURNER, DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS; AND DR. ROBERT BRENNER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY SAFETY BUREAU

Mr. BRIDWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

With me today is Mr. Frank Turner, the Director of the Bureau of Public Roads, and on his right is Dr. Robert Brenner, the Deputy Director of the Highway Safety Bureau.

Senator BOGGS. Thank you. We are glad to have you, gentlemen.
Proceed with your statement.

Mr. BRIDWELL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify on S. 2658, a bill to amend section 127 of title 23 of the United States Code, relating to vehicle weight and width limitations on the Interstate System, in order to make certain increases in such limitations.

I have already mentioned that with me today is Frank C. Turner, Director of the Bureau of Public Roads, who has long familiarity with the matters covered by section 127 of title 23. And Dr. Brenner will be of assistance to us in questions relating to safety.

Senator BOGGS. Very good.

Mr. BRIDWELL. S. 2658 would amend section 127 by increasing the size and weight limitations now imposed by it on vehicles operating on the Interstate System. Specifically, it would increase from 18,000 pounds to 20,000 pounds the maximum weight allowed per axle; increase from 32,000 pounds to 36,000 pounds the maximum weight on