Engineers warn proposed axle-weight increases in SB110/HB204 would shorten road and bridge life

County engineers and local officials told the Mobile County legislative delegation that the pair of bills—Senate Bill 110 and House Bill 204—could substantially shorten the useful life of roads and bridges if they increase per-axle weight limits as drafted.

Kim Sanderson, identified in the meeting as a Mobile County engineer, and Frank Lundy, also introduced as a Mobile County engineer, presented the delegation with engineering calculations based on Alabama Department of Transportation formulas. Sanderson said, “If this is approved as written, we're gonna see ... a 30% reduction in the life of our roads and bridges by this bill passing.” She added that the reduction would negate “over half the gains of the rebuild gas tax” that had previously funded resurfacing and bridge work.

The presenters stressed the distinction between gross vehicle weight and axle loading. They said the bills do not change gross weight limits (currently described in the discussion as 80,000 pounds with a tolerance to 88,000) but would raise permissible weights on individual axles and tandems. The presenters said current state design standards are based on axle limits of 20,000 pounds per single axle and 34,000 pounds for a tandem unit; they described a proposed increase to a 44,000-pound tandem in the draft legislation as particularly damaging to pavement life.

Officials described how axle loads concentrate force where tires meet pavement and how increased axle limits accelerate pavement deterioration and bridge stress. “The actual weight is what causes the damage to roads and bridges,” Sanderson said. She and other presenters said county-maintained roads and many existing bridges were designed to current axle standards, and retrofitting or strengthening them would be far more expensive than current upkeep: “Millions upon billions of dollars to be able to increase that design to handle that load,” one presenter said.

Delegation members raised questions about negotiating a compromise, whether the County Commissions Association was engaged, and whether there are technical or policy fixes that could reduce pavement damage while addressing industry concerns. A presenter said county engineers and the association were in active talks with the sponsor teams and stakeholders and that “there may be some other options to look at,” but said they did not present a final engineered solution to the delegation during the session.

No formal motion or vote on the bills was taken during the meeting. The transcript records requests for further conversation and meetings and a suggestion to pursue negotiations with the sponsor offices and the county commissions association.