Trucking Execs Urge Senators to Turn Down ‘Twin 33’ Trailers

The top executives of 15 major for-hire carriers are pushing back against a drive on Capitol Hill to legalize the operation of twin 33-ft trailers on highways nationwide.

David Cullen・[Former] Business/Washington Contributing Editor

Read David's Posts

June 16, 2015

Trucking Execs Urge Senators to Turn Down ‘Twin 33’ Trailers — *Image: FHWA*

2 min to read

The top executives of 15 major for-hire carriers are pushing back against a drive on Capitol Hill to legalize the operation of twin 33-ft trailers on highways nationwide.

In a succinct letter addressed to Chairman Thad Cochran (R-MS) and Vice Chairman Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, the heads of 13 truckload and 2 LTL carriers urge committee members to oppose an amendment to the next transportation funding bill that “would force states to accept double 33’ [vs. the current 28’] trailers on all U.S. highways” because it is fraught with “unintended consequences.”

The signatories argue that permitting the longer sets of doubles “would have a negative impact on highway safety, accelerate wear and tear on the nation’s highway system, and make it very difficult for small trucking companies, which are the heart of our industry, to compete.”

Noting that trucking itself is “deeply divided on this issue,” they contend that the amendment has not yet been sufficiently discussed on Capitol Hill. Nonetheless, an identical measure has made it through the House unscathed. But President Obama has already threatened to veto the funding package if it makes it to his desk in the same form that it took in the House.

To help make their case against twin 33s, the writers also point out that the comprehensive size/weight study recently put out by the Dept. of Transportation “concluded that no changes in the relevant truck size and weight laws should be considered at this time.”

The authors close by advsing the Senators that they “would be happy to personally visit with you and your colleagues further, on the reasons why this amendment should not be adopted.”

The signatories of the letter are: