Subcommittee divided over proposed pilot to raise interstate truck gross vehicle weight to 91,000 pounds
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Shippers pressed for a pilot to increase GVW to 91,000 pounds with a sixth axle and opt-in state participation; unions and many driver groups warned of safety risks and small‑business impacts.
A proposal to pilot raising interstate gross vehicle weight limits to 91,000 pounds, with a required sixth axle, drew support from shippers and opposition from unions and small‑carrier groups at the House subcommittee hearing.
Proponents said a narrow, state opt‑in pilot would reduce trips and emissions by allowing fuller loads on properly configured tractors and trailers. Opponents said heavier loads would exacerbate crash severity, harm infrastructure and impose costly equipment upgrades on small carriers.
Ryan Lindsey, Executive Vice President of CRH, testifying for the Shippers Coalition, told the panel that a limited interstate pilot would increase efficiency while protecting the public. "With an increase in GVW, we would see these trucks still closer to capacity, meaning fewer vehicles on the road, fewer trips to accomplish the same task and ultimately fewer miles in the system," Lindsey said. He described the proposal as opt‑in for states and said it would require an extra axle and bridge‑formula weight distribution to address roadway safety.
Opponents framed the proposal as a safety and equity risk. Cole Scandalia, representing the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, said heavier and longer vehicles "threaten safety, increase wear and tear on our nation's roads, and add unnecessary operational difficulties for our drivers," and urged the subcommittee to reject size and weight increases. Louie Pugh of OIDA warned that drivers oppose the changes and that such policies would pressure elected officials to grant carve‑outs for specific industries.
Committee members exchanged data and contested studies during the question period. Supporters pointed to Canadian experience and data they said showed modest safety tradeoffs when additional axles and bridge‑formula rules are used; opponents cited Department of Transportation studies and higher brake or out‑of‑service violation rates for heavier combinations.
No vote was taken. Several members said the proposal — described by supporters as a narrowly tailored, interstate‑only, state opt‑in pilot — will remain under review as staff draft reauthorization language and collect further engineering and safety data.