• No results found

IMPACTS OF HIGHER TRUCK WEIGHTS ON ILLINOIS SOYBEAN PRODUCERS

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "IMPACTS OF HIGHER TRUCK WEIGHTS ON ILLINOIS SOYBEAN PRODUCERS"

Copied!
47
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

Prepared for:

I

LLINOIS

S

OYBEAN

A

SSOCIATION

Prepared by:

May 2011

I

MPACTS OF

H

IGHER

T

RUCK

W

EIGHTS ON

I

LLINOIS

(2)

This copyrighted material is intended for the use of clients of Informa Economics, Inc., only and may not be reproduced or electronically transmitted to other companies or individuals, whole or in part, without the prior written permission of Informa Economics, Inc. The information contained herein is believed to be reliable and the views expressed within this document reflect judgments at this time and are subject to change without notice. Informa Economics, Inc. does not guarantee that the information contained herein is accurate or complete and it should not be relied upon as such.

(3)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ... V 

A.  Commodity Flow ... v 

B.  Freight Movements ...vi 

C.  Motor Safety ...vi 

D.  Infrastructure Integrity ... vii 

E.  Truck Weight Implications for Soybeans ... viii 

II.  INTRODUCTION ... 1 

III.  FUTURE ESTIMATES OF FREIGHT MOVEMENT ... 2 

IV.  TRUCK WEIGHT IMPLICATIONS ON MOTOR SAFETY ... 8 

V.  TRUCK WEIGHT IMPLICATIONS TO INFRASTRUCTURE INTEGRITY ... 10 

VI.  ILLINOIS INDUSTRY INTERVIEWS, COMMODITY FLOW ANALYSIS AND IMPACTS ON ILLINOIS INFRASTRUCTURE ... 12 

A.  Industry Interviews ... 12 

B.  Commodity Flow Survey ... 14 

C.  Infrastructure Concerns ... 17 

D.  Other State Weight Limits ... 19 

VII.  TRUCK WEIGHT IMPLICATIONS TRANSPORTING SOYBEAN AND SOYBEAN PRODUCTS IN ILLINOIS ... 23 

A.  Soybean Production Forecast ... 23 

B.  Grain Truck Utilization ... 23 

C.  Individual Cost Scenarios ... 26 

1.  First Move (Field to Elevator) ... 26 

2.  Second Move (Elevator to River or Processor) ... 29 

VIII.  CROP HARVEST ISSUES ... 31 

(4)

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Illinois Ton-mile Reduction from Increased Truck Weight Limit through 2020 viii 

Table 2: Illinois Fuel and Labor Savings ($ per bushel) from Increased Truck Weight

Limit through 2020 ...ix 

Table 3: Domestic Freight Demand Forecast Comparison (annual growth rates) ... 3 

Table 4: Transportation Demand by Mode, 2007 and 2035 (million tons) ... 3 

Table 5: Value of Shipments by Transportation Mode, 2007 and 2035 ($billions) ... 4 

Table 6: Informa Baseline Transportation Projection by Mode (million ton-miles) ... 4 

Table 7: Impact of Higher Truck Weights ... 6 

Table 8: Surplus Brake Capacity by Truck Configuration ... 9 

Table 9: Gross Vehicle Weight by State for 5 and 6 Axle Tractor Semi-trailers ... 21 

Table 10: US and Illinois Soybean Planted Acreage, Yield & Production... 23 

Table 11: Reduction in Soybean Truck Loads from Farm through Adoption of 97,000 pound Truck Weight Limit ... 24 

Table 12: Fuel Cost Savings Moving Soybeans, Increasing Truck Weight from 80,000 pounds to 97,000 pounds ... 25 

Table 13: Reduction in Soybean Truck Loads through Adoption of 97,000 pound Truck Weight Limit from Initial Elevator ... 26 

Table 14: Savings for Average Size Soybean Farmer in Illinois Using Heavier Truck Weight by Fuel Price ($ per gallon) Comparison ... 27 

Table 15: Savings for Large Size Soybean Farmer in Illinois Using Heavier Truck Weight by Fuel Price ($ per gallon) Comparison ... 28 

Table 16: Savings for Specialty Soybean Farmer in Illinois Using Heavier Truck Weight by Fuel Price ($ per gallon) Comparison ... 29 

Table 17: Savings for Country Elevator Shipping Soybeans in Illinois Using Heavier Truck Weight by Fuel Price ($ per gallon) Comparison ... 30 

Table 18: Illinois Fuel and Labor Savings ($ per bushel) from Increased Truck Weight through 2020 ... 30 

(5)

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Truck Ton-Miles Forecast (trillion ton-miles) ... 5 

Figure 2: Illinois Commodity Flow Summary by Weight Category and Commodity ... 14 

Figure 3: Illinois Commodity Flow Summary by Weight Category and Mode ... 15 

Figure 4: Food Manufacturing Flow Summary by Weight Category and Mode ... 16 

Figure 5: Illinois Commodity Flow Summary to Destination Market ... 17 

Figure 6: Illinois Interstates and Counties ... 18 

Figure 7: Illinois Bridges by Year Built ... 19 

Figure 8: Illinois Soybean Harvest Progress ... 31 

Figure 9: Soybean Acres Required to Fill a Semi-Tractor Trailer (900 bushels) ... 32 

Figure 10: Illinois Grain Supplies and Elevator Capacity ... 33 

(6)

I. Executive

Summary

In 2009 Informa conducted a study titled “Heavier Semis: A Good Idea?” for the Soy Transportation Coalition. That study focused on the economic analysis of an increase in truck weights at the national level. The Illinois Soybean Association engaged Informa Economics (Informa) to apply the findings of that study specific to the Illinois transportation infrastructure and specifically to soybean farmers.

The objective of the report is then to determine how increasing the gross truck weight from 80,000 pounds to 97,000 pounds in Illinois will impact soybean farmers in Illinois. Informa examined the implications of such changes on motor safety, road infrastructure and farmer income.

The key findings then include: 1) maintain Illinois road safety standards; 2) preserve roadbed infrastructure integrity; 3) provide a per unit economic gain moving soybeans to market position; and 4) eliminate a comparative economic disadvantage Illinois soybean farmers have with neighboring states that allow heavier truck weights during harvest. The impact on bridges is mixed and requires additional perspective for a 97,000 pound truck configuration.

A. Commodity

Flow

Weight restrictions limit the amount of commodities and products, whether soybeans, mined or steel products for example that can be loaded on a trailer. While increasing the overall truck weight limit will benefit these industries, it will not have a major impact on the trucking industry because approximately 80% of semi-tractor trailers cube out before they weigh out. Cubing out means those trucks can not be loaded to the 80,000 pound restriction. Of the remaining 20% of semi-tractor trailers that do not cube out, the adoption of equipment needed to haul 97,000 pounds will be slowed by equipment cost, existing equipment configurations and existing infrastructure configurations. Although higher truck weights will save the farmer money on transportation, the real benefit to the farmer is a more efficient harvest.

According to the 2007 Commodity Flow Survey1, trucks transport 66% of the commodities moved in Illinois. In Illinois, shipments over 100,000 pounds are primarily moved by rail, pipeline and barge.

The Commodity Flow Survey indicated that for Illinois, 64% of the truck shipments are loaded to less than 50,000 pounds. The products shipped in units above 100,000 pounds include cereal grains, fuels and coal. Existing heavy corridor and weight limit exemptions exist in Illinois and other states for certain commodities on certain routes.

1

US Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics and US Census Bureau.

(7)

The Commodity Flow Survey indicated that for all commodities originated in Illinois, 57% remain in Illinois while no state receives more than 5%. For other agricultural products (including soybeans), 70% are transported within the state to processors and 25% is exported through New Orleans, LA.

For food manufacturing, 17% of the total tonnage shipped by rail is in loads weighing more than 100,000 pounds. The remaining 83% of food manufacturing shipments is transported by truck and multiple modes. An increase in truck weight limit from 80,000 pounds to 97,000 pounds reduces transportation costs approximately 20% for manufacturers shipping heavy products.

B. Freight

Movements

According to the Department of Transportation, for the US, the volume of freight demand by all modes (air, truck, rail and water) is expected to increase from 21.2 billion tons in 2007 to more than 37.2 billion in 2035, an increase of 16 million tons or 75%. Truck volumes are expected to register the largest increase, rising from 12.9 billion tons in 2007 to 22.8 billion in 2035, an increase of nearly 10 million tons or 77% over that time period. Moreover, truck volumes are expected to increase more than the total increase of all other modes combined.

Like Illinois, 80% of US truck traffic cubes out before 80,000 pounds. By 2020, due to the large size of the truck market, even a small percentage decrease in the number of trips will save approximately 16.9 million trips, reduce miles driven by 2.7 billion, and save 226 million gallons of diesel annually.

C. Motor

Safety

Research indicates that if truck weight limits are increased, adding an extra axle with the accompanying brakes increases excess brake capacity and improves stopping performance. Adding an axle also increases the number of tires on a truck from 18 to 22 reducing the load weight per tire while improving tire surface and braking friction. Research results also indicate that there is very little difference between five-axle 80,000 pound semi-tractor trailer and six-axle 97,000 pound semi-tractor trailer in terms of key characteristics of crash dynamics, such as static roll stability, load transfer ratio and rearward amplification. Fatalities and injuries in accidents involving trucks have been declining steadily for several decades in spite of much greater traffic congestion and much higher highway speeds for all vehicles.

Illinois elevators and processors can, and do receive soybeans from neighboring states. In those states farmers can load to heavier weights during harvest as shown in Table 9. In Illinois, a semi-tractor trailer truck can only be loaded to 80,000 pounds, which is safer than a truck configuration for 80,000 pounds loaded to 88,000 pounds. A 97,000 pound truck configuration with an extra axle maintains truck safety standards in Illinois.

(8)

D. Infrastructure

Integrity

Increasing the allowable weights of trucks has implications for bridges and roadways, but the relationship is complicated and the magnitude uncertain. Pavement and bridge impacts are major concerns associated with changing truck weight limits because of the magnitude of Federal and State investments in pavement on the Nation’s highways and in repairing or replacing bridges. Wear-and-tear on paved surfaces (including on bridges) depends on both the volume of traffic and the number of axles over which the weight of the traffic is distributed. The structural integrity of bridges depends not only on the weight of the vehicles, but also the number of axles that carry the weight and the distance between those axles—a relationship used to establish the “bridge formula” that guides current weight restrictions. The bridge formula has not been updated since it was developed in the mid-1970s.

The US Department of Transportation (DOT) “Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Study” concludes that the six-axle 90,000 and 97,000 pound semi-tractor trailer configurations cause less road damage than the five-axle semi-tractor trailers. This study also demonstrated that unit pavement costs and pavement costs per unit of payload-mile are the same or lower for six-axle semi-tractor trailers than for five-axle semi-tractor trailers. The “Wisconsin Truck Size and Weight Study” found the six-axle 98,000 pound semi-tractor trailers generated the highest total net benefits of the truck configurations studied.

The principal cost for bridges associated with heavier trucks lies in ensuring that the bridge can safely accommodate the trucks. This involves replacing or strengthening bridges. In addition bridge replacement or repair disrupts traffic and increases motorist time requirements as traffic patterns change. As a general rule, most bridges constructed after the 1970s can support heavier trucks than are allowed under current rules.

The reasons the truck size and weight studies are in disagreement as to the amount of damage done by a heavier truck with an extra axle are how the assumptions are applied. The Illinois weight limit is based on total weight per truck, which is 80,000 pounds maximum, while in Michigan the weight limit is based on an axle weight distribution formula. The different methodology between states for the bridge formula results in truck configurations being legal in some states and illegal in other states. The Illinois bridge formula might find the heavier six-axle 97,000 pound semi-tractor trailer to exceed current bridge formula limits and would cause stresses exceeding bridge design. The removal of the current bridge formula cap of 80,000 pounds on gross vehicle weight would allow minimal or no increase in gross weight of a five-axle semi-tractor trailer, but could allow vehicles with additional axles to operate substantially above 80,000 pounds.

(9)

E.

Truck Weight Implications for Soybeans

To estimate fuel consumption savings and the number of truck miles reduced, it was assumed that each roundtrip totaled 40 miles. Based on various diesel fuel prices and change in fuel consumption, and the number of truck trips required under a higher weight limit, the US soybean industry could realize fuel cost savings in 2020 between $10.9 million with diesel prices at $2 per gallon and $21.7 million with diesel priced at $4 per gallon. The soybean industry in Illinois could realize fuel savings between $1.4 million and $2.8 million at the respective fuel prices. The US savings in soybean truck miles per year would total nearly 27.9 million miles and 3.6 million miles in Illinois. For secondary users of soybeans or the next trip from the initial off-farm elevator, the assumptions remain the same as initial moves except the round trip increases to 100 miles from 40 miles and 55% of the soybeans move by truck instead of 100% from the farm. The secondary move includes soybeans that are shipped from the initial elevator to a soybean crushing processor or export location. By 2020 if higher truck weights are used, secondary soybean moves will be reduced by nearly 48 thousand in Illinois and nearly 374 thousand for the US.

Total soybean mileage saved using higher truck weights in the US from the farm to the grain elevator would be 218 million miles through 2020 and nearly 28 million for Illinois (based on 40 mile roundtrips and 80,000 pounds going to 97,000 pounds). From the elevator to processor there would be over 176 million fewer miles throughout the US and nearly 22.6 million miles saved in Illinois (based on 100 mile roundtrips and 80,000 pounds going to 97,000 pounds). The truck miles saved is equivalent to 1,600 million fewer ton-miles for the state of Illinois as summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Illinois Ton-mile Reduction from Increased Truck Weight Limit through 2020

` Ton-Miles (Million)

Field to Elevator 866.9 Elevator to Processor 733.4 Total for Illinois 1,600.3

Sources: USDA, Informa

However, for Illinois, an increase in truck weight limits will have a relatively small impact on soybean prices. A soybean farmer with an elevator within 20 miles would save $0.009 per bushel with diesel at $3 per gallon. The elevator that ships soybeans 100 miles would save, with diesel at $3 per gallon, $0.021 per bushel. Just based on soybean production, total savings for Illinois agriculture over the next 10 years would be $179 million at $3 per gallon and $194.1 million at $4 per gallon as summarized in Table 2.

(10)

Table 2: Illinois Fuel and Labor Savings ($ per bushel) from Increased Truck Weight Limit through 2020

Truck Move

$3 $4

Field to Elevator $ 0.0087 $ 0.0092

Elevator to Processor $ 0.0247 $ 0.0271

Weighted Average for both Moves $ 0.0334 $ 0.0363

Savings (million) $ 178.8 $ 194.1

Diesel per Gallon

Sources: USDA, Informa

Note: Weighted Average assumes 100% of the first move is transported by truck and 58% of the second move is transported by truck.

Soybean productivity continues to improve with higher yields in each acre of farmland. This higher productivity requires greater attention to harvest logistics. Not only is there more production for each acre, but farms are harvesting at a faster pace with more efficient harvesting equipment. However, the choke point in the process is moving the harvest from the field to a storage position. The situation is exacerbated in that the farmer harvests the crop when the yields and quality are most ideal, and any delays are negative to yield and quality. Because higher truck weights help decrease the time required harvesting the crop, the yield loss and quality loss during harvest will be minimized.

(11)

II. Introduction

Federal and state regulations govern the weight and physical dimensions of trucks, buses, and trailers on US highways. In 1975, the US Congress increased truck weight limits as a means of promoting greater efficiency in transportation given the energy crisis that was occurring at that time. The weight limit for single axles went to 20,000 pounds, to 34,000 pounds for tandem axles, and the overall weight limit was raised to 80,000 pounds gross vehicle weight (GVW). These limits remain in effect today. Most legislative efforts to increase truck weight limits currently focus on providing an option for individual states to increase allowable truck weights on a single-trailer truck to 97,000 pounds on federal interstate highways, provided the truck has a sixth axle to improve braking and handling.

The regulations have important economic consequences because trucking accounts for about 80% of expenditures on freight transportation in the US, where trucking costs are influenced by the amount of cargo that can be transported per shipment. But, the issue is complex since size and weight limits could also influence highway construction and maintenance costs, and the convenience and safety of highway travel.

This report analyzes, from an economic standpoint, the opportunities and threats of allowing higher weight limits, with specific focus on Illinois. Reflecting current legislative proposals, the analysis considers a weight limit increase to 97,000 pounds. Senator Collins from Maine has been a strong proponent for an increase in truck weights. In Maine, a pilot program expired in December 2010 that allowed six-axle trucks weighing 100,000 pounds to travel on all interstates throughout the state as well as Vermont. This report considers not only efficiency and cost savings from the proposed higher limits, but also provides a thorough review of highway safety considerations and infrastructure integrity issues that could be associated with higher truck weights.

Following this introduction, the report is organized as follows:

 Chapter III considers the overall demand on the nation’s transportation infrastructure, freight shipments by mode, and capacity constraints that currently exist in the system. Freight shipment volumes, by mode, are forecast to 2020.

 Chapter IV reviews and analyzes information that link truck weights with motorist safety, considering such variables as braking distance with the added weight and the effect on truck stability or potential for roll-over.

 Chapter V considers the relationship between truck weights and infrastructure integrity, including wear-and-tear on roadways and the relationship between truck weights and bridge stress.

 Chapter VI examines the commodity flows in Illinois and the impact of heavier weights on Illinois’ infrastructure.

 Chapter VII examines the implications to soybean transportation.  Chapter VIII examines the importance of the harvest period.  Chapter IX is conclusions.

(12)

III. Future Estimates of Freight Movement

Historic freight shipment trends for truck, rail, water and air, and future projections of macroeconomic conditions help guide lawmakers as to the type of infrastructure needed to meet the demand for transportation. Many freight projections have been prepared by the DOT and private organizations. For this report, a review was prepared of three independent forecasts and a fourth forecast that was developed based on comparative analysis of available forecasts and historic trends. The sources of these freight forecasts include the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) at DOT, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the American Trucking Association (ATA) and ICF Consulting (ICF). Informa also prepared its own freight demand forecast.

The most rapid growth in the BTS forecast was the air freight sector (3.1% annual growth), trucking (2.6%) and rail (0.2%). However, while the growth rate for air freight is large, the volume is quite low and limited to high-value products that are extremely time-sensitive. BTS did not prepare a domestic waterborne freight forecast.

An AASHTO report, Freight-Rail Bottom Line Report, examined the performance and productivity of the nation's freight-rail system. The study claimed the rail system requires significant investment to prevent freight volumes from being transferred to the highway system. The report also forecast demand for the four major modes of freight transport (truck, rail, water and air), with the highest growth rate expected in the air freight sector (5.7% annual growth), followed by trucking (2.3%) and rail (1.9%). Domestic waterborne freight was forecast to remain relatively flat (0.7% growth).

The ATA report, US Freight Transportation Forecast to 2014, showed the demand for trucking, rail, water and air. The most rapid growth in the ATA report was the air freight sector (4.4% annual growth), followed by trucking (2.2%) and rail (1.7%). Domestic waterborne freight was forecast to grow similar to rail (1.6%).

As part of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 20-24(33)A, the 21st Century Freight Mobility, ICF Consulting reviewed the freight transportation forecasts described above, as well as other freight industry information, and developed and estimated ton-mile growth rates by mode. According to ICF, the most rapid growth on a ton-mile basis was expected to occur in the air freight sector (4.0% annual growth), followed by trucking (2.5%) and rail (2.0%). Domestic waterborne freight was projected to remain relatively flat (0.7%).

Informa developed a baseline transportation forecast from 2007 through 2020 based on its own economic data and outlook. Informa’s forecast of compound annual growth rate for the respective modes was below the other forecasts, reflecting the current outlook for a prolonged recession that significantly lowers near-term freight demand. The Informa forecast suggests that air will have the largest compound annual growth rate (2.8%) followed by truck (2.2%), rail (1.9%), and water (0.1%), which are not too dissimilar to the other four forecasts as summarized in Table 3.

(13)

Table 3: Domestic Freight Demand Forecast Comparison (annual growth rates)

BTS AASHTO ATA ICF Informa

(ton-miles) (ton-miles) (ton-miles) (tons) (ton-miles) (ton-miles)

1990-2000 2000-2025 2000-2020 2002-2014 2000-2020 2007-2020 Truck 3.9% 2.6% 2.3% 2.2% 2.5% 2.2% Rail 3.6% 0.2% 1.9% 1.7% 2.0% 1.9% Water -2.5% NA 0.7% 1.6% 0.7% 0.1% Air 5.2% 3.1% 5.7% 4.4% 4.0% 2.8% Forecasts Historic Growth Rate Mode

Sources: BTS, AASHTO, ATA, ICF and Informa Forecast

According to the DOT, the volume of freight demand by all modes will increase from 21.2 billion tons in 2007 to more than 37.2 billion in 2035, an increase of 16 billion tons or 75% as shown in Table 4. Truck volumes are forecast to increase the most, from 12.9 billion tons in 2007 to 22.8 billion in 2035, an increase of nearly 10 billion tons or 77% over that time. Moreover, truck volumes will increase more than the total increase of 6.1 billion tons of all other modes combined (Table 4).

Table 4: Transportation Demand by Mode, 2007 and 2035 (million tons)

Mode Total Domestic Exports Imports Total Domestic Exports Imports

Total 21,225 19,268 619 1,338 37,210 33,666 1,112 2,432

Truck 12,896 12,691 107 97 22,813 22,230 262 320

Rail 2,030 1,872 65 92 3,525 3,292 57 176

Water 689 575 57 57 1,041 874 114 54

Air, Air & Truck 14 4 4 6 61 10 13 38

Intermodal 1,505 191 379 935 2,598 334 660 1,604

Pipeline & Unknown 4,091 3,934 6 151 7,172 6,926 5 240

2007 2035

Source: USDOT-FWHA.

Notes: Intermodal includes US Postal Service and courier shipments and all intermodal combinations, except air and truck. Intermodal also includes oceangoing exports and imports that move between ports and interior domestic locations by modes other than water. Pipeline and unknown shipments are combined because data on region-to-region flows by pipeline are statistically uncertain. Data do not include imports and exports that pass through the United States from a foreign origin to a foreign destination by any mode.

The value of the shipments increases with shipment volume. The value of shipments totaled $14.9 trillion in 2007 and was forecast to increase 182% by 2035 to $41.9 trillion. The value of shipments will be highest by truck ($23.8 trillion), followed by intermodal ($9.0 trillion), pipeline and unknown ($2.4 trillion), air and truck ($5.9 trillion), rail ($702 billion) and water ($151 billion) as shown in Table 5.

(14)

Table 5: Value of Shipments by Transportation Mode, 2007 and 2035 ($billions)

Mode Total Domestic Exports Imports Total Domestic Exports Imports

Total 14,869 12,363 904 1,603 41,867 29,590 3,392 8,884

Truck 9,764 9,266 235 264 23,767 21,653 806 1,306

Rail 416 303 36 78 702 483 63 156

Water 51 37 8 7 151 103 31 18

Air, Air & Truck 1,022 235 354 434 5,925 721 1,548 3,655

Intermodal 1,935 870 270 795 8,966 4,315 943 3,708

Pipeline & Unknown 1,680 1,652 1 26 2,357 2,315 1 41

2007 2035

Source: USDOT-FWHA. Notes: Same as Table 4.

Informa forecasted ton-miles by transportation mode. Growth rates in truck and railroad are similar. Truck trailers and intermodal containers move by truck and on railroads to take advantage of the fuel efficiency rail offers. As a result, the rail and truck industries are partners as well as competitors. Domestic water transportation increased slightly in 2007 because of internal waterway movements. Air ton-miles will increase 43% in 2020 compared to 2000. Pipeline shows modest increase of less than 1% growth annually from 2000 to 2020 as shown in Table 6.

Table 6: Informa Baseline Transportation Projection by Mode (million ton-miles)

Year

Total US

Freight Air Truck Railroad

Domestic Water Transportation Pipeline 2000 4,328,642 15,810 1,192,825 1,546,319 645,799 927,889 2005 4,574,701 15,741 1,291,515 1,733,777 591,276 942,392 2006 4,637,513 15,357 1,294,492 1,852,833 561,629 913,202 2007 4,609,000 15,739 1,317,000 1,820,000 553,000 904,000 2008 4,621,002 15,979 1,332,436 1,840,996 525,350 906,242 2009 4,530,754 15,401 1,295,177 1,790,318 529,027 900,831 2010 4,634,380 16,016 1,334,815 1,844,231 532,731 906,587 2011 4,748,020 16,692 1,378,415 1,903,534 536,460 912,919 2012 4,883,371 17,503 1,430,616 1,974,537 540,215 920,500 2013 4,981,828 18,085 1,468,172 2,025,620 543,996 925,955 2014 5,082,679 18,683 1,506,667 2,077,979 547,804 931,545 2015 5,185,982 19,295 1,546,125 2,131,648 551,639 937,275 2016 5,291,799 19,923 1,586,569 2,186,658 555,501 943,149 2017 5,400,192 20,566 1,628,024 2,243,044 559,389 949,169 2018 5,511,225 21,225 1,670,515 2,300,839 563,305 955,340 2019 5,624,963 21,901 1,714,069 2,360,079 567,248 961,666 2020 5,741,473 22,594 1,758,711 2,420,801 571,219 968,149 Source: BTS and Informa (Forecast)

Domestic trucking is the major mode of transportation from a volume standpoint as shown in Table 4; but from a ton-mile standpoint, the rail sector is 37% greater than truck as seen in Table 6. Overall, truck shipments represent two-thirds of the total freight tons moved, but only 30% of the ton-miles. The compound annual growth rate for truck ton-miles was forecast to stay in a range of 1.9% and 2.6% using GDP growth rates of 2% for a low case scenario and a high growth annual rate of 3%. The baseline growth rate assumed the US economy would expand at a 2.5% growth rate starting in 2013. Although this range appears narrow, by 2020 the difference between the high

(15)

and low forecast is 177 billion ton-miles as shown in Figure 1. Even the low ton-mile forecast is going to require more equipment, labor, and increases in highway mileage. Allowing higher truck weights on the federal highway system will reduce the demand for new trucks and drivers, which will help contain transportation costs, reduce congestion, and lower environmental impacts.

Figure 1: Truck Ton-Miles Forecast (trillion ton-miles)

1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 005 2 006 2 007 2 008 2 009 2 010 2 011 2 012 2 013 2 014 2 015 2 016 2 017 2 018 2 019 2 020 Tr il li on Ton-Mi le s

Baseline High Low

Forecast

Sources: BTS and Informa

The impact of increasing the federal limit on truck weights is small relative to the total transportation market. Based on discussions with various industry representatives and reviews of several studies, approximately 80% of truck traffic is semi-tractor trailer configured while the remaining traffic is straight truck or box truck. Moreover, industry representatives indicated that approximately 20% of the semi-tractor trailer traffic is constrained by weight limits, meaning that goods and commodities loaded into a semi-tractor trailer truck configuration weigh out at the federal weight limit of 80,000 pounds before cubing out the trailer or using all the available volumetric space of the trailer. For industries impacted by the weight limits, those that weigh out before they cube out, the benefits from increasing the federal truck weight limit from 80,000 pounds to 97,000 pounds will be significant. If the federal truck weight limit were increased, and given that truck demand is large and will continue to grow, even a small percentage decrease in the number of trips could save approximately 17.3 million trips annually, reduce miles

(16)

driven by 2.8 billion annually, and save 226 million gallons of diesel annually by 2020, as summarized in Table 7.

Table 7: Impact of Higher Truck Weights

80,000 lbs 97,000 lbs Saved Trips 2008 8,328 1,416 62,921 50,561 12,359 1,978 162 2009 8,095 1,383 61,461 49,388 12,073 1,932 158 2010 8,343 1,432 63,651 51,148 12,503 2,000 164 2015 9,663 1,699 75,517 60,683 14,834 2,373 194 2020 10,992 1,979 87,936 70,663 17,273 2,764 226

Year Mileage Saved

(million miles)

Fuel Saved (million gallons) Number of Trips (thousands)

Truck Volume (million tons) Total Semi Volume Weight Constrained (million tons)

Sources: BTS and Informa

Notes: This assumes an average trip distance of 160 miles; does not include dead head miles; assumes 80% of trucks moves in 2008 were Semi-tractor trailer, 90% by 2020; assumes 20% of semi-tractor trailer volume is not limited by weight; 80,000 pound truck = 5.8 mpg, 97,000 pound truck = 5.14 mpg

The key benefits to a state from an increase in federal truck weight limits includes the reduction in the number of trucks used to move the same volume and a shift of truck traffic from Illinois’ state highways to federal highways, which would lead to state savings on maintenance cost for roads and bridges on state highways, which already permit heavier-weight trucks in some instances.

To determine how a change in weight limits could affect shipment patterns and truck density, Informa considered a range of economic variables that could affect adoption, including the cost of new trailers, whether or not shipments in excess of 80,000 pounds would be subject to additional fees/permits, and the type of freight most likely to benefit from higher weight standards.

Industry experts say that the Class 8 semi-tractor trailer truck would be able to handle the increase in weight from 80,000 pounds to 97,000 pounds. A typical truck configuration with a gross vehicle weight of 80,000 pounds is assumed to be a Class 8 semi-truck with three axles hauling a two-axle trailer. To haul 97,000 pounds, a three-axle trailer will be required. The cost of a new truck is about $90,000. A trailer with two axles is about $20,000, and a trailer with three axles is about $23,000.

Operationally, an operator’s cost will increase for each trip hauling heavier weights. With the gross vehicle weight expected to increase 21% to 97,000 pounds, the additional weight will reduce the miles per gallon (mpg) 11% from an estimated average of 5.80 mpg to around 5.14 mpg according to industry representatives.

Other fees could be part of the increased truck weight legislation. Rep. Michael Michaud (D-ME) introduced H.R. 1799, the Safe and Efficient Transportation Act of 2009. This act provides an option for individual states to increase allowable truck weight on a single-trailer truck up to 97,000 pounds on federal interstate highways in each state. Motor carrier vehicles would be required to add a third axle to the trailer (for a total of six axles on the truck and trailer) for better braking and handling. Each truck

(17)

configuration adding an additional axle would be required to pay a higher large vehicle user fee into the Safe and Efficient Vehicle Trust Fund to assist with maintenance and bridge repair, Fleet Owner April 7, 2009.

The US economy requires an effective and efficient freight transportation system to operate at minimal cost and respond quickly to demand for goods. As the economy grows, the demand for goods and related freight transportation activity will increase. Current volumes of freight are straining the capacity of the transportation system to deliver goods quickly, reliably and affordably. Anticipated long-term growth of freight could overwhelm the system's ability to meet the needs of the American economy. Increasing truck weight limits will have an unambiguous effect on the efficiency of the nation’s freight transportation system by reducing the number of trucks needed to haul the equivalent volume of freight in the US. However, relative to the current volume of freight shipments and its anticipated growth, the effect on traffic congestion and overall transportation costs are small. Nevertheless, the cost savings and reduced fuel usage are not insignificant and could provide substantial savings to certain industries. In addition, given the fact that the capacity of the transportation system is increasing at a much slower rate than the demand for freight services, increasing truck weight limits could represent the quickest, most effective way to increase the capacity of the transportation network, however small that capacity increase might be relative to total demand. Even a modest reduction in truck volume or total ton-mileage on the highway system would be welcomed by businesses, consumers and drivers that share the road with trucks.

However, while the efficiency gains are clear, they must be balanced against the potential for heavier trucks to compromise the safety of public roads or to lead to greater wear-and-tear on roads and bridges that result in higher costs of highway maintenance which are ultimately paid by taxpayers. The following sections explore the relationship between truck weights and public safety and the integrity of roadways and bridges. A detailed description of Illinois’ freight movements and commodity flows is provided in Section VI.B.

(18)

IV. Truck Weight Implications on Motor Safety

There is a significant body of research by federal and state agencies that concludes that increasing truck weight maximums, e.g., from 80,000 to 97,000 pounds, and adding axles improves braking performance and highway safety. One key reason is that an additional axle with additional corresponding brakes increases excess braking capacity. Also adding an extra axle increases the number of tires from 18 to 22 and reduces the load weight per tire.

The general safety impact of policies that change maximum truck sizes and weights is complex. Larger trucks are more difficult to handle, and can be more dangerous to operate in some situations, but that factor can be offset readily by using better equipment and better trained drivers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is in the process of requiring improved truck brakes and shorter braking-distance standards, so that the long-standing disparity between automobiles and trucks in stopping distances will be reduced.

Available research results also indicate that there is very little difference among truck configurations in terms of key characteristics of crash dynamics, such as static roll stability, load transfer ratio and rearward amplification.

Still, proposals to increase truck size and weight maximums likely face opposition because automobile drivers think they are much more dangerous. In reality, fatalities and injuries in accidents involving trucks have been steadily declining for several decades in spite of greater traffic congestion and higher highway speeds for all vehicles. Available research also indicates that increasing maximum truck weights would make US highways safer and reduce the number of highway truck crashes by reducing the number of truck miles needed to move any given amount of freight.

A study prepared for the Minnesota Department of Transportation called “Minnesota Truck Size and Weight Project” concluded that crash rates per vehicle-mile increased slightly with gross weight primarily because loading a truck heavier raises its center of gravity and thereby increases the possibility of rollover. However, crash rates per payload ton-mile also can decrease with a gross weight increase because fewer truck trips are required to haul a given amount of freight.

More importantly, the Minnesota study results show there is more surplus brake capacity for all the proposed vehicle configurations than for the standard five-axle semi-tractor trailer when categorized on the basis of normal and winter weights. Since multiple axle groups are assembled using standard axles, the braking capacity increases proportionately to the sum of Gross Axle Weight Rating (GAWR) for the axle group. For example, a tandem axle group comprised of two 20,000-pound axles will have braking capacity sufficient to manage 40,000 pounds. However, size and weight regulations limit the tandem axle group to 34,000 pounds, which means the tandem axle group has more braking capacity than required.

(19)

The maximum gross vehicle weight (GVW) for each truck configuration studied and the corresponding brake capacity expressed in terms of the vehicle axle load and percent brake surplus available for the vehicle configuration is shown in Table 8. Surplus brake capacity exists for all the proposed truck configurations in the Minnesota study as shown in Table 8. In all cases, the proposed vehicles have more brake capacity than the current commonly used five-axle semi-tractor trailer when categorized on the basis of normal and winter weights. For example, the five-axle configuration that is loaded to 88,000 pounds has only 4.5% surplus brake capacity compared with a six-axle loaded to 99,000 pounds that has 13.1% excess braking capacity. It can be concluded that under loaded conditions, a truck configuration designed for and loaded to 97,000 pounds is safer than a truck configuration designed for 80,000 pounds that is loaded to 88,000 pounds. All truck configurations are considered safe, but more excess brake capacity is helpful in preventing wrecks.

Table 8: Surplus Brake Capacity by Truck Configuration

Vehicle Configuration Regulated GVW

Sum of GAWR Brake Capacity GAW Brake Requirement Percent Surplus Brake Capacity 5-axle semi 80,000 92,000 80,000 15.0 5-axle semi winter 88,000 92,000 88,000 4.5 6-axle semi 90,000 112,000 90,000 24.4 6-axle semi winter 99,000 112,000 99,000 13.1 7-axle semi 97,000 132,000 97,000 36.1 7-axle semi winter 99,000 132,000 99,000 33.3 8-axle B-train 108,000 152,000 108,000 40.7 7-axle single-unit 80,000 132,000 80,000 65.0 Source: “Minnesota Truck Size and Weight Project”

Note: Gross axle weight rating assumptions: steer axle 12,000 pound, driver axle 20,000 pound, trailer axle 20,000 pound.

According to the Maine Motor Transport Association, an increase in truck weights to 97,000 or 100,000 pounds on interstates would allow less semi tractor trailers on two lane highways. This sixth axle would not only improve braking power but it also removes heavier trucks from two lane roads, decreasing the potential for head-on collisions, stoppage at red lights and school-highway intersections.

A 97,000 pound truck configuration with an extra axle maintains truck safety standards in Illinois.

(20)

V. Truck Weight Implications to Infrastructure Integrity

Freight volumes are expected to double over the next 30 years, putting more pressure on all freight modes to increase productivity to handle the volume. Across the US, the use intensity of truck freight is 10,500 trucks per day per mile. By 2035, the use intensity is expected to increase to 22,700 trucks, with the most heavily used portions of the system handling upwards of 50,000 trucks per day per mile. This use intensity burden will be a significant issue for both highway and bridge capacity and conditions. Pavements and bridges have limited lives, depending on their design, the local environment and the repeated loadings to which they are subjected. Average pavement life depends on the design employed. Many pavements and bridges constructed in the 1960s and 1970s are reaching the end of their useful lives and will soon require significant rehabilitation or replacement. Use by heavy trucks and overweight trucks is a major determinant of pavement and bridge design and a major factor in costs of roadways and bridge maintenance.

The concern for increased freight demand is leading to a need to enlarge truck size and weights (TS&W). Virtually all TS&W studies show large reductions in shipping costs associated with an increase in TS&W limits, with the magnitude of the reductions depending on specific assumptions concerning allowable vehicle weights and dimensions.

Such studies also show potential adverse impacts of increasing TS&W limits on infrastructure costs. Pavement and bridge impacts are major concerns associated with changing TS&W limits because of the magnitude of federal and state investments in pavement on the nation’s highways and in repairing or replacing bridges. Wear-and-tear on paved surfaces (including on bridges) depends on both the volume of traffic and the number of axles over which the weight of the traffic is distributed. The structural integrity of bridges depends not only on the weight of the vehicles that pass over it, but also the number of axles that carry the weight and the distance between those axles—a relationship used to establish the “bridge formula” that guides current weight restrictions.

Most TS&W studies show that switching to heavier trucks with additional axles can leave pavement damage about the same or slightly lower. First, allowing heavier trucks increases the payload per truck, so fewer trips are required to move the same freight and resulting in fewer vehicle miles and less pavement damage. Second, heavier trucks distribute their weight over an increased number of axles, as compared with the trucks they replace. Because pavement damage increases sharply with axle weight, the reduced weight per axle of the heavier trucks means less pavement damage. On the other hand, adding more payload to a current truck configuration (such as increasing the weight on a five-axle semi-tractor trailer configuration from 80,000 to 100,000 pounds) will increase pavement damage sharply. Thus an increase in truck weight limits that does not encourage a switch to more axles per truck, leads to substantial pavement costs.

(21)

For example, the US Department of Transportation (DOT) “Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Study” concludes that the six-axle 90,000 and 97,000 pound semi-tractor trailer configurations cause less road damage than the five-axle semi-tractor trailers. This study also demonstrated that unit pavement costs and pavement costs per unit of payload-mile are the same or lower for six-axle semi-tractor trailers than for five-axle semi-tractor trailers. The “Wisconsin Truck Size and Weight Study” found the six-axle 98,000 pound semi-tractor trailers generated the most total net benefits of the truck configurations studied. Although the six-axle 98,000 pound semi-tractor trailers ranked third out of seven vehicles in terms of pavement net benefits, such vehicles showed substantial savings in transport, safety and congestion costs. “The Minnesota Truck Size and Weight Project” found that the seven-axle 97,000 pound semi-tractor trailers had the smallest impact on roads of the studied vehicles. The six-axle 90,000 pound tractor trailers also had a smaller impact than the 80,000 pound five-axle semi-tractor trailers. Logic would dictate that a five-axle semi-semi-tractor trailers loaded to 88,000 pounds would cause even more damage to Illinois’ infrastructure.

Some TS&W studies found that the stress to bridges depends more on the truck’s total load than on the number of axles, suggesting that increases to truck weight limits can create large costs for bridge maintenance, even when additional axles are added. For bridges, the principal cost associated with heavier trucks lies in ensuring that the bridge can safely accommodate the varied truck configurations. This involves replacing or strengthening bridges. The true cost of replacing or strengthening a bridge is far greater when factoring in disruptions to traffic flow, incurred delays and higher fuel consumption as traffic patterns change.

The TS&W studies reviewed found that the use of a six-axle, 90,000 pound semi-tractor trailer does not increase stress on bridges at maximum weight compared with five-axle semi-tractor trailer. However, the DOT and Wisconsin studies found that heavier six-axle 97,000/98,000 pound semi-tractor trailers exceed current bridge formula limits and will cause stresses exceeding bridge design if fully loaded. Additionally, the Wisconsin study found that bridge replacement costs were the highest for the six-axle 98,000 pound semi-tractor trailer configuration of the vehicles studied. The removal of the current bridge formula cap of 80,000 pounds on gross vehicle weight would allow minimal or no increase in gross weight of a five-axle semi-tractor trailer, but could allow vehicles with additional axles to operate substantially above 80,000 pounds. However, none of the studies reviewed tried to develop a new bridge formula. The bridge formula was developed in 1975, and according to some sources, bridges built since the late 1970s should accommodate higher truck weight limits. But, about 37% of the total bridges across the US in 2008 were built since the late 1970s.

(22)

VI. Illinois Industry Interviews, Commodity Flow Analysis

and Impacts on Illinois Infrastructure

A. Industry

Interviews

Interviews with industry representatives throughout the state of Illinois were conducted to evaluate and determine the impact that heavier trucks would have on their business. Interviews were conducted with managers of several grain elevators, processing facilities and state associations.

The interviews focused on two main areas. The first area was the cost impact to a specific facility to handle heavier trucks, up to 120,000 pounds. This could involve upgrading scales and unloading facilities. The second area focused on any immediate or long term gains generated in the area of basis pricing, improved margins or competitive advantage. A summary of those interviews is presented in this section. Several managers at large elevator and processing facilities stated that they have upgraded their operations (e.g. scales and unloading pits) to accommodate heavier truck weights. Some facilities are able to handle truck weights greater than 120,000 pounds. While heavier loads increase unloading time, it does reduce the number of trucks for the same amount of grain.

According to some managers, the reduction in the number of trucks at the larger facilities reduces truck trips 12%. By reducing the number of trucks, the facilities gain an advantage in reducing the overall freight expense, as well as reducing general overhead and administrative costs. The administrative areas involve scheduling, processing bills of lading, shipping and receiving.

The majority of truck equipment, 80% to 85%, is semi-tractor trailers hauling product in and outbound from the facilities. The truck owner would need to add a sixth axle to legally haul product with a gross vehicle weight of 97,000 pounds. The cost to add an additional axle is approximately $6,000. Elevator managers thought that the truck operators’ return on investment would be realized fairly quickly due to the increase in volume and the reduction in the number of trips.

Several of the elevator facilities were not aware that there were studies looking at the increase in truck weights. They would favor such a move as it would have a direct, beneficial impact on their operations.

The Illinois Department of Transportation (ILDOT) and the Illinois Motor Truck Association (IMTA) have not formalized a position on this issue. ILDOT has stated in the past that there needs to be more investigation on the safety issue and the impact of heavier truck weights on road and highway maintenance. Both organizations see the benefit to both sides of the argument. They also stated that raising the truck weight limits is limited due to the fact they believe 80% of trucks cube out before reaching 80,000 pounds. As a result, only those industries that are limited by the weight

(23)

restrictions express an interest towards increasing the weight limit. According to IMTA, independent truckers have shown concerns about being able to increase their rates to offset the increase in wear-and-tear on the vehicle and a decrease in miles per gallon caused by carrying an additional 17,000 pounds. However, the Maine Motor Transport Association states that the increase in ton-miles would cover any additional cost to fuel. The key points from the interviews include:

 One of the key challenges for Illinois will be convincing townships that an increase in truck weight will not increase damage to the bridges.

 Priority for funding is primarily based on population and traffic counts. Currently townships are experiencing a funding shortage for repairing bridges. The townships are leery of anything that could increase their budget deficit.

 Most facilities were not aware of any studies or the possibility of new legislation that would increase truck weight limits.

 Elevators currently receive some trucks that are overweight.

 An upgraded scale and pit to support trucks up to 120,000 pounds would cost $75,000; the scale itself costs $58,000.

 Truck scales at most elevators have been upgraded or installed with heavier weight capacity.

 Truck unloading pits would not require an upgrade and most of the pits can manage the extra volume without an increase in unloading time. Some elevator managers expect unloading time would increase at some elevators by 15 minutes to 20 minutes per truck.

 Under current weight limits, unloading wait times during harvest time averages 45 minutes.

 Some managers at the ethanol facilities stated there would be little impact on the outbound shipments since the volume is shipped by rail or over state lines. Intra-state shipments would benefit from higher weight.

 Reduce the number of arriving trucks by more than 12% annually.  Cost benefits on freight and administration processes.

(24)

B.

Commodity Flow Survey

According to the 2007 Commodity Flow Survey, of all commodity traffic originated in Illinois (627 million tons), 51% of the shipments weighed less than 50,000 pounds as shown in Figure 2. In 2007, 15% of the tonnage transported weighed 50,000 to 100,000 pounds and one-third was over 100,000 pounds. In terms of ton-miles, the over 100,000 pound category accounted for two-thirds of the total. Illinois is a major agriculture exporting state where railroads employ unit trains to transport heavy loads long distances.

The data over 100,000 pounds was investigated to discover what other industries would be in support of raising the truck weight limits. Products being shipped above 100,000 pounds include energy, steel and farm products. Agricultural products are transported the greatest distance and energy products the shortest.

Figure 2: Illinois Commodity Flow Summary by Weight Category and Commodity

By Weight Over 100,000 Pound (Tons)

10,000 - 49,999 lbs 43% 50,000 - 99,999 lbs 15% Over 100,000 lbs 34% Under 10,000 lbs 8% Cereal Grains 19% Gasoline and Aviation Turbine Fuel 17% Nonagglomerated Bituminous Coal 12% Other 24% Fertilizers 7% Fuel Oils 9% Coal and Petroleum Products 12%

By Ton-Mile Over 100,000 Pound (Ton-Miles)

10,000 - 49,999 lbs 28% 50,000 - 99,999 lbs 8% Over 100,000 lbs 57% Under 10,000 lbs 7% Gasoline and Aviation Turbine Fuel 5% Base Metal 4% Natural Sands 5% Other Agricultural Products 6% Animal Feed and Products of Animal Origin 8% Nonagglomerated Bituminous Coal 9% Other 10% Cereal Grains 40% Fertilizers 13%

Sources: US Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics and US Census Bureau, 2007 Commodity Flow Survey.

(25)

Truck moved two-thirds of the commodities in Illinois, while only 9% of shipments over 100,000 pounds were in a truck as shown in Figure 3. The truck weight limit of 80,000 pounds prevents heavier loading, but 75% to 95% of truck movements in Illinois cube out before reaching the 80,000 pound weight limit. An increase in the truck weight limit will not impact at least 75% of the current commodity truck movements. Other factors, such as new equipment cost, container size, trailer size, width of roads and height of bridges, limit the ability of the market to switch to higher truck weights.

Figure 3: Illinois Commodity Flow Summary by Weight Category and Mode

By Weight By Mode 10,000 - 49,999 lbs 43% 50,000 - 99,999 lbs 15% Over 100,000 lbs 34% Under 10,000 lbs 8% Multiple Modes 8% Rail 11% Truck 66% Water 7% Pipeline 8%

Over 100,000 Pound by Mode Truck by Weight

Multiple Modes 15% Rail 29% Truck 9% Water 22% Pipeline 25% 50,000 - 99,999 lbs 20% Under 10,000 lbs 11% Over 100,000 lbs 5% 10,000 - 49,999 lbs 64%

Source: US Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics and US Census Bureau, 2007 Commodity Flow Survey.

Illinois food manufacturing account for 34 million tons of manufactured goods. Food manufacturing is an industry that benefit from a truck weight increase because food manufacturing products, such as frozen dinners and canned goods tend to be considerably heavier due to their high water content. For food companies that can maximized the 97,000 weight limit, truck shipping costs are reduced approximately 20%.

(26)

Approximately 34% of the products from food manufacturing in Illinois were shipped as greater than 100,000 pound shipments as shown in Figure 4. All food manufactured goods in Illinois are shipped in truck, rail or both truck and rail.

Figure 4: Food Manufacturing Flow Summary by Weight Category and Mode

By Weight Under 10,000 lbs 4% Over 100,000 lbs 34% 50,000 - 99,999 lbs 13% 10,000 - 49,999 lbs 49% By Mode Rail 17% Truck 67% Multiple modes 16%

Source: US Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics and US Census Bureau, 2007 Commodity Flow Survey.

For commodities originated in Illinois, 57% remain in Illinois while no other state received more than 5% as shown in Figure 5. For the sake of comparison, 60% of all commodities originated in Indiana remained in state.

More than half of the cereal grains (including corn) in Illinois are transported within the state. The largest destinations for that cereal grain volume include Louisiana with 38%, Alabama 4%, and Georgia and Missouri with 3%, respectively. Grain destined for Georgia and Alabama supports its large broiler sector. For other agricultural products (including soybeans), 70% are transported within the state to processors and 25% is exported through New Orleans, LA.

For commodity truck traffic in Illinois, 71% remains within the state and 29% leaves the state. Approximately 86% of the truck movements occur within Illinois and the surrounding states. Of the 12% shipped beyond surrounding states, 4% is trucked to nearby states Ohio and Michigan. Only 8% of all commodities were shipped to states that would normally receive commodities by rail or water.

(27)

Figure 5: Illinois Commodity Flow Summary to Destination Market

By Destination Market Cereal Grains by Destination Market

Illinois 57% Louisiana 5% Indiana 5% Missouri 4% Kentucky 3% Ohio 3% Wisconsin 3% Tennessee 2% Texas 2% Michigan 2% Other 14% Illinois 51% Georgia 3% Louisiana 38% Alabama 4% Missouri 3%

Other Agriculture Products by Destination Market

Commodity Truck Moves by Destination Market Other 5% Louisiana 25% Illinois 70% Illinois 71% Indiana 4% Missouri 4% Wisconsin 3% Michigan 2% Ohio 2% Iowa 2% Other 12%

Source: US Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics and US Census Bureau, 2007 Commodity Flow Survey.

C. Infrastructure

Concerns

Truck size and weight studies are in disagreement as to the amount of damage done by a heavier truck with an extra axle when loaded to recommended weights. Interstates play a pivotal role for the Illinois’ agricultural community, providing direct access to a number of markets as shown in Figure 6.

(28)

Figure 6: Illinois Interstates and Counties Sangamon T ippecanoe Marion I 74 I 74 I 74 I 74 I 74I 74I 74I 74 I 74 I 72 I 72 I 72I 72I 72I 72I 72I 72I 72 I 70 I 70 I 70I 70I 70I 70I 70I 70I 70 I 55 I 55 I 55I 55I 55I 55I 55I 55I 55 I 57 I 57 I 57I 57I 57I 57I 57I 57I 57 I 80 I 80 I 80I 80I 80I 80I 80I 80I 80 I 44 I 44 I 44I 44I 44I 44I 44I 44I 44 I 64 I 64 I 64 I 64 I 64I 64I 64I 64 I 64 Missouri River Missouri River Missouri RiverMissouri RiverMissouri RiverMissouri RiverMissouri RiverMissouri RiverMissouri River

Green River Green River Green River Green River Green RiverGreen RiverGreen RiverGreen River Green River

Ohio River Ohio River

Ohio RiverOhio RiverOhio RiverOhio RiverOhio RiverOhio RiverOhio River Cumberland RiverCumberland RiverCumberland RiverCumberland RiverCumberland RiverCumberland RiverCumberland RiverCumberland RiverCumberland River

Peoria Peoria PeoriaPeoriaPeoriaPeoriaPeoriaPeoriaPeoria

Springfield Springfield Springfield Springfield SpringfieldSpringfieldSpringfieldSpringfield

Springfield

Lafayette Lafayette Lafayette Lafayette LafayetteLafayetteLafayetteLafayette

Lafayette

Ind Ind Ind Ind IndIndIndInd

Ind

Davenport Davenport DavenportDavenportDavenportDavenportDavenportDavenportDavenport

St. Louis St. Louis St. LouisSt. LouisSt. LouisSt. LouisSt. LouisSt. LouisSt. Louis

Sangamon T ippecanoe Marion Adams Alexander Ballard Benton Berrien Bollinger Bond Boone Boone Breckinridge Brown Brown Bureau Butler Calhoun Cape Girardeau Carroll Carroll Cass Cass Cass Cedar Champaign Christian Christian Clark Clay Clay Clinton Clinton Coles Cook Crawford Crawford Crawford Crittenden Cumberland Daviess Daviess De Kalb De Witt Delaware Dent Des Moines Douglas Du Page Dubois Dubuque Edgar E Edwards Effingham Elkhart Fayette Ford Fountain Franklin Franklin Fulton Fulton Gallatin Gasconade Gibson Grays Green Greene Greene Grundy Hamilton Hamilton Hancock Hancock Hardin H Henderson Hendricks enry Henry Hopkins Howard Iron Iroquois Jackson Jackson Ja Jasper Jasper Jefferson Jefferson Jersey Jo Daviess n Johnson Johnson Jones Kal Kane Kankakee Kendall Kenosha Knox Knox Kosciusko La Porte La Salle Lafayette Lake Lake Lawrence Lawrence Lee Lee Lincoln Livingston Logan Logan Louisa Lyon Macon Macoupin Madison Madison Marion Marion Marshall Marshall Marshall Martin Mason Massac Mccracken Mcdonough Mchenry Mclean Mea Menard Mercer Miami Monroe Monroe Montgomery Montgomery Montgomery Morgan Morgan Moultrie Muhlenberg Muscatine Newton Ogle Ohio Orange Owen Parke Peoria Perry Perry Perry lps Piatt Pike Pike Pike Porter Posey Pulaski Pulaski Putnam Putnam Ralls Randolph Reynolds Richland Rock Saline Schuyler Scott Scott Scott Shannon Shelby Simpson Spencer St. Charles St. Clair St. Francois S St. Joseph Stark Starke Ste. Genevieve Stephenson Sullivan T azewell T ipton T odd T rigg Union Union Van Buren Vanderburgh Vermilion Vermillion Vigo Wa Wabash Walworth Warren Warren War Warren Warrick Washington Wa Washington Wayne Wayne Webster White White Whiteside Will Williamson Winnebago Woodford I 74 I 74 I 74 I 74 I 74I 74I 74I 74 I 74 I 72 I 72 I 72I 72I 72I 72I 72I 72I 72 I 70 I 70 I 70I 70I 70I 70I 70I 70I 70 I 55 I 55 I 55I 55I 55I 55I 55I 55I 55 I 57 I 57 I 57I 57I 57I 57I 57I 57I 57 I 80 I 80 I 80I 80I 80I 80I 80I 80I 80 I 44 I 44 I 44I 44I 44I 44I 44I 44I 44 I 64 I 64 I 64 I 64 I 64I 64I 64I 64 I 64 I 24 I 24 I 24I 24I 24I 24I 24I 24I 24 I 294/I 290 I 294/I 290 I 294/I 290 I 294/I 290 I 294/I 290I 294/I 290I 294/I 290I 294/I 290

I 294/I 290 I 39 I 39 I 39I 39I 39I 39I 39I 39I 39 I 465 I 465 I 465 I 465 I 465I 465I 465I 465 I 465 I 80/I 94 I 80/I 94 I 80/I 94I 80/I 94I 80/I 94I 80/I 94I 80/I 94I 80/I 94I 80/I 94

I 88 I 88 I 88I 88I 88I 88I 88I 88I 88 I 94 I 94 I 94 I 94 I 94I 94I 94I 94 I 94 Peoria Peoria PeoriaPeoriaPeoriaPeoriaPeoriaPeoriaPeoria

Springfield Springfield Springfield Springfield SpringfieldSpringfieldSpringfieldSpringfield

Springfield

Lafayette Lafayette Lafayette Lafayette LafayetteLafayetteLafayetteLafayette

Lafayette

Ind Ind Ind Ind IndIndIndInd

Ind

Davenport Davenport DavenportDavenportDavenportDavenportDavenportDavenportDavenport

St. Louis St. Louis St. LouisSt. LouisSt. LouisSt. LouisSt. LouisSt. LouisSt. Louis

Chicago Chicago ChicagoChicagoChicagoChicagoChicagoChicagoChicago

The reasons the truck size and weight studies are in disagreement as to the amount of damage done by a heavier truck with an extra axle are how the assumptions are applied. In Illinois the weight limit is based on total weight per truck, which is 80,000 pounds maximum, while Michigan’s weight limit is based on an axle weight distribution formula. The different methodology between states for the bridge formula results in truck configurations being legal in some states and illegal in others. The Illinois bridge formula might find the heavier six-axle 97,000 pound semi-tractor trailer to exceed

(29)

current bridge formula limits and would cause stresses exceeding bridge design. The removal of the current bridge formula cap of 80,000 pounds on gross vehicle weight would allow minimal or no increase in gross weight of a five-axle semi-tractor trailer, but could allow vehicles with additional axles to operate substantially above 80,000 pounds. At the end of 2010, the Federal Highway Administration released the number of bridges built by year for each state. The number of bridges built in Illinois from 2006 to 2010 was 1,071 while from 1981 to 1985, the number of bridges built was 2,667 as shown in Figure 7. Nearly three quarters of the bridges built in Illinois have been since 1960.

Figure 7: Illinois Bridges by Year Built

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 2006 -201 0 2001 -200 5 1996 -200 0 1991 -199 5 1986 -199 0 1981 -198 5 1976 -198 0 1971 -197 5 1966 -197 0 1961 -196 5 1956 -196 0 1951 -195 5 1946 -195 0 1941 -194 5 1936 -194 0 1931 -193 5 1926 -193 0 1921 -192 5 1916 -192 0 1911 -191 5 1906 -191 0 1 905 a nd earlie r N u mber of B ri dges

Source: FHWA Bridge Programs NBI Data

Bridge rehabilitation extends a bridge’s lifespan and requires less time than building a new bridge. Rehabilitation is the fastest alternative to improve a bridge rather than reconstructing one, limiting the impact of a closure on a community and industry reliant on the infrastructure. The decision to rehabilitate or construct a new bridge is based on several factors, with safety and economics the two most important aspects. The problem of bridges that are in need of repair is a common problem in the US. As bridges are repaired, they are routinely strengthened to accommodate heavier trucks.

D.

Other State Weight Limits

The use of heavier weight limits is currently in place in states around Illinois. In 2010, Iowa increased its allowance for truck weights to 90,000 pounds with sixth axle and 96,000 pounds with a seventh axle. This creates a disadvantage for Illinois agriculture if

(30)

crossing into a surrounding state. In addition, during harvest, some states allow a 10% overweight policy for grain trucks on non-interstate roads. This is important because out of the 4 million miles of highway in the US, 150,000 are national highways, 45,000 to 64,000 miles are interstates, and the rest are state and county roads. Of the surrounding states to Illinois, only Wisconsin does not allow any commodities to be transported with overweight allowances. A list of truck weights by state is shown in Table 9.

In cases of an emergency, the governor of individual states can allow overweight tractor semi-trailers to be driven on highways. Typically the weight allowance is 10% of the gross weight and the speed limit usually drops to 30 miles per hour on bridges. In addition, drivers are not allowed to drive over posted or closed bridges. This was recently done in Missouri due to flooding. The Illinois governor has such a provision to exercise in the event of a declared emergency.

References

Related documents

• Speed of weaning: induction requires care, but is relatively quick; subsequent taper is slow • Monitoring: Urinary drug screen, pain behaviors, drug use and seeking,

Figure 8 presents example light curves of known or suspected variable stars matched with the SIMBAD database and included in our conservative selection of variable candidates for

Further, the strategy of employing different resampling processes is to construct the true posterior distribution by treating the observation model as part of the proposal

If the contract was really for a fixed term, the private respondent should not have been given the discretion to dismiss the petitioner during the one year period of employment

Submits standards for universal adoption • 11073 Device Communication. •

COMPANY ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP PHONE.. Dowdle

The fourth category was improving English skills, defined as students’ learning via various sort of media social tools such as Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube.. These

6 Without the unforeseen growth in overseas investment income and the recent boom in City earnings, there would have been a much larger deficit in the current account at the end