Washington, D.C. — Truck size and weight policy doesn’t sound like the kind of issue that keeps people up at night. But as Congress works on the next surface transportation bill, proposals to let trucks get heavier or longer could reshape road safety, local infrastructure costs, and freight movement in communities across the country.
GoRail partnered with the National League of Cities to bring more than 250 attendees together for Bigger Trucks, Bigger Stakes: Understanding the Transportation Debate in Congress, a webinar breaking down which proposals are actually on the table in Washington and what they would mean for local governments, law enforcement, taxpayers, and the broader freight network.
“Truck size and weight policy could sound technical, but its effects are very tangible for your communities,” said GoRail President Betsy Cantwell, who moderated the discussion.
What’s Actually Being Proposed
Brad Roseberry, president of the Coalition Against Bigger Trucks (CABT), opened with the group’s guiding line: “We are not the coalition against trucks. We are not the coalition against big trucks. We are the coalition against bigger trucks.”
CABT has made this argument since 1995, building a coalition of more than 3,000 local officials, law enforcement leaders, truck drivers, and safety advocates in all 50 states. In 31 years, no nationwide truck weight or length increase has passed Congress.
The current federal weight limit is 80,000 pounds on five axles. The proposal getting the most traction on Capitol Hill currently would create a 10-year “pilot program” allowing 91,000-pound trucks — a 14% increase — on a sixth axle. Other proposals would add length to trailers or expand longer combination vehicles already running in parts of the country.
“Ten years doesn’t sound like a pilot to me. Ten years sounds permanent,” said Chief Steven Casstevens, a 46-year law enforcement veteran and past president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. He pointed to a 2016 U.S. DOT report to Congress that found no safety benefit to increasing truck size and weight, and to more recent data showing 91,000-pound trucks have a 47% higher crash rate and 18% higher rate of brake violations that take trucks out of service.
The Infrastructure Bill Nobody’s Talking About
Heavier trucks don’t stay on federal highways — they exit onto local roads and bridges to load, unload, fuel and repair. A CABT bridge study found more than 68,000 bridges nationwide couldn’t safely handle 91,000-pound trucks, at a repair and replacement cost of roughly $78 billion. In Casstevens’ home state of Illinois alone, over 1,200 bridges would be at risk, at an estimated $1.4 billion cost to state taxpayers.
Trucks at the current 80,000-pound limit already cover only about 80% of their damage to roads and bridges; at 91,000 pounds, that share drops to roughly 55%, according to CABT. And the required sixth axle isn’t free — Casstevens said it runs about $10,000 per trailer, a cost that falls hardest on small operators. “For the mom-and-pop operations, this is all cost and no benefit,” he said.
Andrea Eales, who leads government and public affairs for the American Public Works Association (APWA), noted that local governments own, operate, and maintain 75% of the nation’s roads and bridges — and that the Highway Trust Fund has needed general fund transfers for years just to keep pace with what Congress has already authorized. “You cannot put a price on people’s lives,” Eales said. “That needs to be the top priority when looking at all facets of our infrastructure.”
Where Things Stand in Congress
Michael Bauman, who covers truck policy for the House Transportation and Infrastructure Highways and Transit Subcommittee’s Democratic Staff, gave attendees a read on the legislative math. The 91,000-pound pilot program and a related provision on heavier auto haulers were both adopted by very thin margins during the committee’s markup of its bipartisan surface transportation bill earlier this year. On a 67-member committee, the largest in the House, one amendment was decided by six votes and the other by a single vote.
“That’s just a level of how intense these policy disagreements can be,” Bauman said. With neither the full House nor the Senate having acted on a companion bill, and midterm elections approaching, he called it unlikely the current bill becomes law this Congress — but said that’s no reason to stop engaging, since the same debate will resurface in the next one.
Panelists also traced how a state-by-state “opt-in” for heavier trucks has historically been a backdoor to national increases: when states refused to raise limits to 80,000 pounds after Congress made it optional in 1975, Congress mandated the standard nationwide by 1982 rather than tolerate a patchwork. Roseberry argued the current pilot proposal follows the same playbook.
The Bottom Line on Truck Size and Weight
A steady stream of audience questions — on electric truck weight exemptions, agricultural hauling, and enforcement funding — underscored how closely local leaders are tracking this fight. As Cantwell closed the session, she pointed attendees to CABT’s alert list for updates as the debate continues.
“Your support and advocacy could make a real difference in this policy fight,” Cantwell said.
GoRail will keep working with CABT, APWA, and law enforcement partners to make the case that current truck size and weight standards protect the communities, roads, and bridges that freight rail and highways both depend on.
