The Safe & Efficient Transportation Act
(SETA)
H.R. 763 & S. 747
Advocacy Packet
Making Roads Safer | Protecting the Environment | Strengthening the Economy
www.transportationproductivity.org
The Safe and Efficient Transportation Act (SETA)
Carefully Modernizing American Truck Shipments without Making Trucks Larger
Above: Five-axle truck traveling at 80,000 lbs. Below: Six-axle Truck traveling at 97,000 lbs.
Trucks are the same size.
The U.S. gross vehicle weight limit has not been updated since 1982. As a result, the U.S.
trails all other developed countries in cargo mass productivity and is at a severe competitive
disadvantage.
If equipped with six axles, trucks can safely ship more freight. The sixth axle does not make
the truck bigger or longer. It simply maintains—and even improves—current braking, handling
and weight-per-tire characteristics.
Weight Displacement Per Tire (lbs)
Stopping Distance in Feet
Using Standard S Cam Brakes at 60 mph
Vehicle
Weight (lbs)
5-Axle (18
Wheels)
6-Axle (22
Wheels)
Vehicle
Weight (lbs)
5-Axle
6-Axle
80,000
4,444
3,636
80,000
240
191
90,000
5,000
4,091
90,000
271
220
97,000
5,389
4,409
97,000
295
241
Source: Paul Johnson, Ind. Consultant, former Sr. Dir of Engineering,
Meritor WABCO.
Coalition for Transportation Productivity
www.transportationproductivity.org
www.TransportationProductivity.org
The Safe & Efficient Transportation Act (SETA)
Modernizing Truck Weight Regulation for Safer, Greener, More Efficient Transportation
America’s transportation network faces significant challenges.
For more than 25 years, the federal weight limit has been set at 80,000 pounds—a regulation that now challenges our
safety, economy, environment and infrastructure. Companies that ship heavy goods often meet the federal weight limit
with significant space in their trailers, and are forced to use more trucks than necessary.
The weight limit has created an inefficiency problem that is hindering economic recovery. Diesel fuel prices are on the
rise, and available truck capacity has dropped by approximately 16 percent since 2008. At the same time, freight hauled
by trucks in the U.S. is expected to double by 2035. As we recover from the recession, even more trucks will need to take
to the road to meet growing demand.
Congress should enact the Safe & Efficient Transportation Act (SETA), H.R. 763, S. 747, to modernize truck
transportation and make it safer and more sustainable.
SETA gives states the option to safely raise interstate weight limits, without making trucks any larger.

States would be free to set interstate weight limits of up to 97,000 pounds—but only for vehicles equipped
with an additional (sixth) axle.

The required sixth axle would maintain braking capacity and the current distribution of weight per tire without
changing the size of the truck.

While the additional axle maintains vehicle safety performance and reduces pavement wear, the additional
user fee for six-axle units would fund vital bridge repair.
SETA would effectively help address the safety, economic and environmental challenges facing our
nation’s freight transportation network.
 Safer Roads:
Tractor-trailers are traveling more miles than ever to keep up with rising demand.
 Truck traffic has grown with the needs of the U.S. economy and population—increasing 11 times faster than
road capacity.

The U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that by 2025, the amount of freight shipped throughout the
U.S. will increase 87 percent from what it was in 2000.
SETA will allow companies to consolidate freight on fewer trucks to make roads safer.
 Trucks are safer than ever before. In 2009, the most recent highway statistics on record, the number of
injuries in U.S. truck-related accidents declined by 18 percent, and the rate of truck-involved fatalities fell 14
percent—making that year the safest since the federal government began keeping track in 1975.
(Source: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2009/)

However, the biggest single factor in the number of vehicle/tractor-trailer accidents is vehicle miles traveled
(VMTs). Tractor-trailers now travel twice as many miles as they did in 1982.

SETA presents an opportunity for shippers to lower the VMTs needed to deliver their freight, reducing their
accident rate even further.

Under full implementation of SETA, CTP member MillerCoors would need 2,000 fewer trucks each week—
eliminating more than one million weekly vehicle miles.
Academic studies have shown, and empirical evidence proves, that SETA will improve highway
safety while maintaining current road standards.
 Since the United Kingdom raised its gross vehicle weight limit to 97,000 pounds for six-axle vehicles in 2001,
fatal truck-related accident rates have declined by 35 percent. More freight has been shipped, while the
vehicle miles traveled to deliver a ton of freight has declined.
(Source: http://www.dft.gov.uk/adobepdf/162469/221412/221522/222944/28584011/01_Road_Freight_Stats_2007.pdf)

Based on the findings of a 2009 Wisconsin DOT study, if a law like SETA had been in place in 2006, it would
have prevented 90 truck-related accidents in the state during that year.
(Source: http://www.topslab.wisc.edu/workgroups/tsws/deliverables/WisDOT_TS&W%20Study_1-1-09_final.pdf)

The Transportation Research Board determined that a six-axle truck carrying 97,000 pounds has the same
braking distance as the 80,000 pound truck with five-axles.
(Source: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr267.pdf)
 Cleaner Environment
SETA will save fuel and reduce greenhouse emissions.
 Six-axle trucks carrying 97,000 pounds get 17 percent more ton-miles per gallon than five-axle trucks carrying
80,000 pounds, according to a 2008 study by the American Transportation Research Institute.
(Source: http://www.atri-online.org/research/results/environmentalfactors/2008_atri_hpv_1_pager.pdf)

The U.S. DOT estimates that raising the federal weight limit would save 2 billion gallons of diesel fuel annually
and result in a 19 percent decrease in fuel consumption and emissions per ton mile.
(Source: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/tswstudy/Vol3-Chapter10.pdf)

Under full implementation of SETA, CTP member Kraft Foods would save 6.6 million gallons of fuel and
eliminate 73,000 tons of carbon emissions each year.

The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, responsible for air quality management in
California’s largest agricultural production region, supports increasing the federal vehicle weight limit for its
positive environmental and economic impact.
 Stronger Economy
SETA will help U.S. businesses improve their competitive edge and will help position our economy
for a steady recovery.

Rail is often the first choice for shipping where it is available, but trucking is also crucial. Shippers need
affordable intermodal options to achieve economic recovery and absorb rising commodities prices. SETA
would boost trucking efficiency to safely boost the economy.

U.S. gross vehicle weight limits trail all of our major trading partners, including Canada, Mexico and most
European nations. Raising the limit would help the U.S. compete in the global economy.

SETA would allow American producers to consolidate goods and reduce the number of weekly shipments. It
will also spur investment in upgraded equipment, create jobs and transition the U.S. to a more efficient
transportation network.

Under full implementation of SETA, CTP member International Paper would annually save about $70 million
in shipping costs.

Once the economy recovers from the current recession, a shortage of long-haul truck drivers will return and
likely quadruple by 2014 from 2004 levels. Even with increased weight limits, the driver shortage (and
available trucking jobs) will still exist.
 Improved Infrastructure
The user fee for 97,000-pound, six-axle trucks will fund accelerated bridge repair and maintenance,
while units will inflict less damage on our nation’s roads.

The additional axle would limit road wear by reducing per tire weight displacement.

The higher weight limit would cut the number of trucks needed for shipments—saving $2.4 billion in pavement
restoration costs over 20 years, according to a U.S. DOT study.
(Source: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/tswstudy/Vol3-Chapter5.pdf)

Fewer trucks would satisfy America’s shipping needs, putting less overall weight on any given stretch of
pavement while directing higher user fees toward bridge repair and maintenance.
Research Supporting Increased Gross Vehicle Weights
Multiple studies conclude that increased gross vehicle weights provide solid net benefits in the areas of fuel use,
environment, safety, congestion, pavement wear, and economics, which more than offset additional bridge
expenses. Results from similar reform in the United Kingdom further support the conclusions.

SAFETY, ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENT: A 2009 Wisconsin study found that if the federal
government allowed 6-axle 98,000 pound configuration, Wisconsin employers would have saved
more than $150 million in transportation costs in 2006 and there would have been 90 fewer
accidents involving heavy trucks. Benefits were quantified from labor, fuel, safety, congestion,
emissions, and pavement and more than offset incremental bridge repair expense.
Wisconsin Truck Size & Weight Study, 2009 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

SAFETY: A United Kingdom (UK) Study on increased vehicle weight clearly illustrates the case. In
2001, the UK raised gross vehicle weight on 6-axle trucks to 97,000 pounds. Tonnage shipped has
continued to increase yet vehicle miles traveled has been flat and accident rates have been steadily
declining - exactly what would be expected.
Transport Statistics Bulletin: Road Freight Statistics 2007. United Kingdom Department for Transport,
2008.

SAFETY, ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENT: Minnesota’s 2006 study revealed a 90,000 lb 6-axle
vehicle yielded $4.4 million in net benefits and noted that the proposed vehicle configurations for
operations above 80,000 pounds GVW meet internationally accepted heavy vehicle safety
performance standards.
Minnesota Truck Size & Weight Study, 2006 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

SAFETY: A 2002 study from Transportation Research Board found that the braking capability from
the additional axle makes the braking power nearly equivalent to 5 axles running at 80,000 pounds.
Special Report 267, Transportation Research Board, 2002

SAFETY, ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENT: A 2008 European Union study looked at 3 alternative
scenarios, all yielding results favorable to the base case. They found lower costs per pound, safety
and environmental benefits. Infrastructure costs were higher for road and bridge maintenance but
not higher than the overall benefits derived.
Effects of Adapting the Rules on Weights and Dimensions of Heavy Commercial Vehicles as
Established within Directive 96/53/EC. Transport & Mobility Leuven 2008

ENERGY/ENVIRONMENT: A 2008 American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) study found
the 97,000 pound 6-axle configuration achieved 151 ton miles per gallon compared to 129 for the
80,000 pound 5-axle vehicle – a 17% improvement.
Energy and Emissions Impacts of Operating Higher Productivity Vehicles. The American
Transportation Research Institute, 2008

SAFETY, PAVEMENT WEAR: All 3 safety tests (rearward amplification, load transfer ratio, and
static roll stability) were within 4% of the existing 80,000 pound truck data resulting in nearly exactly
the same handling capabilities but with fewer trucks causing significantly less road wear damage
when compared to existing configurations. Savings in pavement restoration costs are approximately
$2.4 billion over twenty years.
USDOT Size & Weight Study, 2000
Appendix
Wisconsin Study: Analysis of Six-Axle Tractor-Semitrailer
This summary will focus on the 6-axle, 98,000 pound tractor-semitrailer, which is similar to a configuration
that ATA and a number of other organizations believe should be authorized for legal use on Interstate
highways under federal law. The vehicle ATA supports is a 6-axle tractor-semitrailer with a gross weight
limit of 97,000 pounds, a tandem axle weight limit of 34,000 pounds and a tridem axle limit of 51,000
pounds. The study assumed a gross weight of 98,000 lbs, a tandem axle limit of 35,000 pounds and a
tridem axle limit of 51,000 pounds. An illustration of the vehicle under consideration is below:
Net Benefits
The study found that this configuration achieved the greatest net benefit of all the vehicles considered. If
limited to non-Interstate highways, the vehicle yielded net annual economic benefits relative to the base
case of $15.23 million. If the vehicle is allowed to operate on both Interstate and non-Interstate highways,
net annual benefits climb to $150.09 million.
Transport Savings
The vast majority of the benefits are generated by savings related to labor, fuel, vehicle repair, tire
replacement and overhead costs. Under the non-Interstate only scenario, annual transport savings are
$19.19 million; under the Interstate scenario, savings are $127.94 million.
Safety
The study found reduced accident costs of $1.52 million under the non-Interstate scenario and $9.4 million
under the Interstate scenario. These savings result from fewer accidents due to lower vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) anticipated to result from productivity increases. Under the non-Interstate scenario the
study predicts a statewide reduction in truck VMT of 0.18%, and a reduction of 1.21% under the Interstate
scenario. The study found negligible differences in the crash rate of the 6-axle vehicle compared with the
base vehicle. There were 7,431 crashes involving large trucks in Wisconsin in 2006. Had the 6-axle
vehicle been authorized for operation in 2006, it is expected that the number of accidents would have been
reduced by 13 and 90 under the non-Interstate and Interstate scenarios, respectively. The authors
suggested that VMT reductions, and thus crash savings, would be substantially greater if neighboring states
also allowed this configuration to operate, since carriers would be more likely to utilize the vehicle.
Congestion
The vehicle produces $1.89 million in annual congestion savings under the non-Interstate scenario and
$11.03 million under the Interstate scenario. Congestion savings result from anticipated VMT reductions.
Pavement
$1.1 million and $10.19 million in annual pavement savings are estimated under the non-Interstate and
Interstate scenarios, respectively. Because axle weights compared with the baseline scenario remain
essentially unchanged, the VMT reductions produce fewer pavement interactions and, therefore, less
pavement wear.
Bridge
Additional annual bridge costs are estimated to be $8.48 million. The study assumes that all bridges
determined to have an insufficient load rating to accommodate the study vehicles would be replaced. In
reality, many bridges would instead be load-posted or rehabilitated. Therefore, the cost estimates are likely
to be high. The report points out that only bridges with a span of greater than 20’ were analyzed. An
analysis of all bridges would yield higher costs. It is important to note that $6.94 million of the annual costs
were for bridges on local roads, while just $1.54 million were for bridges on state roads. This makes sense
because bridges on state roads tend to be built to accommodate heavier loads. It is likely that most routes
used by these vehicles would be on state routes, and local bridges could probably be posted without a
significant impact on trucking operations, or in a manner that causes trucks to use highly circumferential
routes on a significant number of trips.
Energy and Emissions Savings
The study found 1.42 million gallons in annual fuel savings. This would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by
31.62 million pounds; particulate matter by 162,000 grams; and nitrous oxides by 32.76 million grams. The
energy and emissions review only looked at non-Interstate highway scenarios. Since there is a close
relationship between energy use and VMT, it should be assumed that because the VMT reduction under the
Interstate scenario is more than six times greater than under the non-Interstate scenario, similar energy and
emissions reduction ratios can be expected. In fact, the reductions are likely to be greater because fuel
efficiency on Interstate highways tends to be better than on non-Interstate highways.
Minnesota - Impacts of Proposed Vehicle Configurations
6 axle 90,000 pound vehicle generated $4.43 Million net benefits annually:
• Increased payloads and fewer truck trips will lower transport costs significantly.
• Additional axles and fewer truck trips will result in less pavement wear.
• A modest increase in bridge postings and future design costs will be necessary.
• Proposed trucks have slightly higher crash rates but, given fewer overall truck miles (due to
increased payloads) than would be experienced otherwise under existing weight limits, safety
would improve slightly.
• The proposed vehicle configurations for operations above 80,000 pounds GVW meet internationally
accepted heavy vehicle safety performance standards.
2008 European Union Study
A 2008 European Union study looked at 3 alternative scenarios, all yielding results favorable to the base
case. They found lower costs per pound, safety and environmental benefits. Infrastructure costs were
higher for road and bridge maintenance but not higher than the overall benefits derived. All scenarios give
an overall positive effect on society compared to the reference, with scenario 2 (the full option LHV)
showing a greater benefit than scenarios 3 and 4. The main reason for this, is that society has to spend less
money for transporting the same (even slightly more) goods. LHV vehicles seem to be more cost-effective
than current HGVs (heavy goods vehicles). They transport more tonne-km (+1 %) with less vehicle-km (12.9 %). Even when some transport is shifted from rail (-3.8 % tonne-km) and inland waterways (-2.9 %
tonne-km) to road, the road transport sector still grows. Additionally, positive effects were predicted for
safety and emissions, both mainly due to a reduction in road vehicle-km (-12.9 %), despite the fact that the
individual LHV is more unsafe and more polluting than a regular truck. The only negative impact is the high
costs to road infrastructure. Higher investments in maintenance and bridges will be needed, though these
investment costs are lower than the savings in the transport sector, and in society (emissions and safety).
US DOT Study of 2000




97,000-pound 6-axle trucks resulted in pavement restoration cost savings of $2.4 billion over 20
years.
97,000-pound 6-axle trucks had an improvement of approximately 5% in its Rearward
Amplification during DOT’s testing compared with the 80,000-pound 5-axle trucks.
97,000-pound 6-axle trucks had less than a 3% decrease in its Load Transfer Ratio during DOT’s
testing compared with the 80,000-pound 5-axle trucks.
97,000-pound 6-axle trucks had less than a 4% decrease in Static Roll Stability in DOT’s testing
compared with the 80,000-pound 5-axle trucks.
Conclusion: All three safety tests (rearward amplification, load transfer ratio, and static roll stability) were
within 4% of the existing 80,000 pound truck data resulting in nearly exactly the same handling capabilities
but with fewer trucks causing significantly less road wear damage when compared to existing
configurations. Savings in pavement restoration costs are approximately $2.4 billion over twenty years
United Kingdom Study
The United Kingdom raised its gross vehicle weight limit to 97,000 pounds for six-axle vehicles in 2001.
According to a UK Department for Transport study, fatal truck-related accident rates have declined by 35
percent. More freight has been shipped, while the vehicle miles traveled to deliver each ton of freight has
declined.
Impact and Analysis of Higher Vehicle Weight Limits on
Minnesota’s Interstate System – March 2011
Mn/DOT’s Minnesota Truck Size and Weight Project (June, 2006) established Mn/DOT’s position with
regard to heavier trucks. The study views the topic from a standpoint of balancing infrastructure preservation, safety
and economic benefits. Several neighboring states in the upper Midwest and Canada have higher vehicle weight
limits than Minnesota. Many agricultural industries in Minnesota are impacted competitively by lower vehicle
productivity in Minnesota. Current Truck Size and Weight limits (80,000 pounds on Interstate system) control the
amount of payload that can be carried in a truck. An increase in vehicle weight limits would increase the allowable
weight per trip, so fewer truck trips would be necessary to carry the same weight. Freight transportation cost
savings due to increases in vehicle weight limits would benefit not only shippers and carriers but all consumers.
There are two current bills in Congress (HR 763 and HR 801) that propose increasing vehicle weight limits of
vehicles using the national interstate system. These bills both display “opt-in” language, meaning that enabling
State legislation is a requirement of the proposed law.
Pavement Perspective: The key point on the impact of increased gross vehicle weight to the preservation of
infrastructure is the weight load per axle. The current weight limit (80,000 lbs) on the interstate system is spread
over five axles. The new weight limits in the two bills (97,000 and 99,000 lbs) are spread over six axles, which
MnDOT deems acceptable, but would prefer if the weight limits were spread over seven axles since adding axles to
a heavy vehicle is the best way to compensate for its higher weight and to reduce any negative impacts on
pavement. The Interstate system is built on a higher standard so having large trucks use that system rather than
the local road system makes sense from the perspective of infrastructure, industry and local communities. From an
infrastructure standpoint, the risks are relatively low. We already allow this type of truck (by annual permit) on our
non-interstate trunk highways, and the bridges on our interstate system are in equal or better condition than the TH
bridges.
Safety Perspective: They key point on safety is a vehicle’s gross axle weight rating (GAWR) and its impact on
surplus brake capacity. Axles that are added to a vehicle are rated for GAWR. The brakes fitted to the axle are
sized in compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air
brake systems. The more axles on a vehicle, the more brakes are added, providing more braking capacity. The
requirement for more axles, wheels and brakes ensures that stopping distance continues to meet legal
requirements.
We believe there would not be a decrease in safety with respect to the number of commercial truck crashes
resulting from increases in truck weight. Enhanced education of drivers about truck safety and outreach on the
importance of highly skilled drivers to operate these larger and heavier vehicles would further minimize the potential
for a negative impact on roadway safety in Minnesota.
Bridge Perspective: Under Minnesota law there is a table of maximum weights for truck axle groups.
Compliance with this law protects bridges from overstress. If one of the two current bills was passed, we would
need to perform load ratings on about 20 bridges, and possibly do some minor strengthening to a few of them. The
cost to “get ready” would be negligible. Repetitive loading by heavier trucks will theoretically shorten the service life
of a bridge (material fatigue and deck wear), but it’s difficult to quantify this cost. There also could be an increase in
annual bridge maintenance costs. According to the 2006 Truck Size and Weight Project, these costs might be on
the order of $50,000 annually. HR 763 provides a revenue source for maintenance, while HR 801 does not.
Conclusion: Minnesota supports the authorization of vehicles with a gross weight of either 97,000 or 99,000
pounds on six axles to operate on the Interstate System routes in the state, provided that adequate enabling State
legislation is passed.
Separating Myth from Fact:
The truth about the Safe and Efficient Transportation Act (SETA)
and the Safe Highways and Infrastructure Preservation Act (SHIPA).
Myth
SHIPA will make roads safer and preserve infrastructure.
Trucks operating off the interstate are not regulated.
SHIPA will properly regulate truck weight limits.
SETA will put bigger trucks on the road.
SETA would allow trucks to carry too much weight.
Raising the interstate weight limit will mean more trucks on the road.
Fact
SHIPA will jeopardize safety and infrastructure. With truck freight doubling in
the next 20 years, additional weight restrictions mean that even more trucks
will take to the road to satisfy growing demand.
Every state currently enforces its own weight limits on state roads.
SHIPA would freeze weight limits on all roads in the national highway system
and take away each state’s ability to decide its own weight limits based on
local safety and environmental factors.
The size of the truck would not change. Trucks that are no bigger than today’s
53’ rigs would simply be equipped with an extra axle to safely handle heavier
loads.
A six-axle vehicle loaded at 97,000 pounds displaces the same amount of
weight per tire and stops at the same distance as five-axle, 80,000-pound
vehicles currently allowed on interstates.
The passage of SETA will allow companies to ship the same amount of
product, and meet demand, with fewer trucks.
SETA will shift business away from railroads.
There is no evidence of this, as rail rates would still be significantly cheaper
than truck rates. Rail transportation is often the first choice, but does not run
everywhere freight must be delivered.
SETA will put heavier trucks on bridges that
weren’t meant to hold the extra weight.
Each state could restrict operation on interstate routes not suited for
commercial traffic. Moreover, SETA would implement a higher fee for heavier
vehicles that would fund bridge repair.
The current interstate weight limit often forces trucks to travel on rural roads
that pass schools and private driveways, where accidents are more likely to
occur. SETA would put these trucks on divided interstate highways, where
Coalition for Transportation Productivity
they can safely and efficiently transport goods.
Making Roads Safer | Protecting the Environment | Strengthening the Economy
www.transportationproductivity.org
Raising the interstate weight limits will make roads more dangerous.
The Safe & Efficient Transportation Act: Setting the Record Straight

The Safe and Efficient Transportation Act applies only to truck weight – not size.
By referencing ―changes in truck size and weight‖ or ―bigger trucks,‖ detractors are able to cite safety risks that
simply do not apply to SETA—which only affects truck weight.
The 97,000-pound, six-axle vehicles outlined in SETA are just as safe as trucks currently traveling on the
1
2
Interstate System. The U.S. DOT and Transportation Research Board both determined that these vehicles do
not lose stopping or handling capability, nor does weight-per-tire increase.

The Safe and Efficient Transportation Act does not raise weight limits across the entire Interstate
System; it allows individual states to raise weight limits if they so choose.
SETA is a carefully crafted proposal that simply gives states the ability to set higher weight limits on routes in their
jurisdictions that are suitable for heavier trucks. It would be up to each state to determine if heavier, six-axle
trucks can traverse interstates within their borders and where they can travel.
Under SETA, states will have the authority to implement targeted weight limits and pilot projects in order to
facilitate safer, greener, more productive roads. Freezing interstate weight limits will only block such productivity
advancements and pilot project opportunities.

The Safe and Efficient Transportation Act will minimize the trucks required to meet demand.
If we expect to maintain an expanding economy that continues to meet the needs of a growing population, freight
will inevitably increase – and so will the number of trucks required to ship it. SETA will minimize the number of
trucks our country requires to meet demand – now and in the years ahead. Without increases in cargo capacity,
there will be even more trucks on the road.

Trucks pay their fair share of highway fees.
Commercial trucks make up just 12 percent of vehicles registered in the U.S. and drive about 14 percent of the
3
miles traveled. Yet trucks pay about 42 percent of Federal Highway Trust Fund revenues.

The Safe and Efficient Transportation Act will only affect the movement of heavier goods—
approximately 25 percent of freight shipped.
Because SETA increases weight limits but not truck size, only shippers that move dense, heavy products will
utilize the new six-axle configuration. The reality is that SETA would only affect perhaps a quarter of freight
shipped in the U.S. – not the entire trucking community. The majority of freight will still be handled efficiently by
the current configuration, should trucking firms choose not to invest in six-axle trucks.

The Safe and Efficient Transportation Act will improve truck efficiency without adversely affecting
rail.
SETA is not expected to divert business from railroads. A 2009 study by the Wisconsin DOT predicted that the
4
proposal would yield no significant displacement of freight from rail to trucking. The findings were later confirmed
5
by another major study by the Soy Transportation Coalition.
Rail is – and will remain – the first choice for shipping where access and services meet shipper’s needs. However,
making truck shipment safer, cleaner and more efficient is beneficial to the motoring public, the environment and
the entire shipping industry – both rail and truck.

The Safe and Efficient Transportation Act will not reduce job availability for truck drivers.
The U.S. has long struggled with a shortage of long-haul truck drivers that will quadruple by 2014 from 2004
levels. Even with increased weight limits, the driver shortage (and available trucking jobs) will still exist.
1
USDOT, Size & Weight Study, 2000
Transportation Research Board, Special Report 267, 2002
FHWA Highway Statistics, 2008 (Tables MV1, MV9 & VM1).
4
Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Wisconsin Truck Size & Weight Study, 2009
5
The Soy Transportation Coalition, Heavier Semis: A Good Idea?, 2009
2
3
When it Comes to Truck Weight Reform,
Safety is Priority Number One.
That's Why We Support
The Safe and Efficient Transportation Act.
The Safe and Efficient Transportation Act
Allows states to selectively set interstate weight limits of up to
97,000 pounds for trucks equipped with a sixth axle.
The bill does not affect truck size. Under SETA, shippers of
heavier cargo could more fully fill existing 53' rigs.
SETA is a proven way to minimize truckloads and
safely accomodate economic growth.
•
U.S. DOT and Transportation Research Board studies both determined that
97,000-pound, six-axle trucks maintain nearly the same braking and handling
capabilities as 80,000-pound, five-axle vehicles.
•
The biggest single factor in the number of vehicle/tractor-trailer accidents is
vehicle miles traveled (VMTs). SETA would allow shippers to safely consolidate
freight and minimize both truckloads and VMTs.
•
The UK raised its gross vehicle weight limit to 97,000 pounds for six-axle
vehicles in 2001. Since then, truck-related fatalities have declined by 35
percent. More freight has been shipped, while vehicle miles traveled to deliver
each ton of freight has declined.
•
Based on the findings of a 2009 Wisconsin DOT study, if a law like SETA had
been in place in 2006, it would have prevented 90 truck-related accidents in
the state that year.
•
Maine and Vermont implemented pilot projects giving heavier, six-axle trucks
full access to their interstate highways during 2010. Law enforcement officials,
motorists and truckers all agree that the change made roads noticeably safer
and more efficient.
Making Roads Safer | Protecting the Environment | Strengthening the Economy
www.transportationproductivity.org
About the Coalition for Transportation Productivity:
The Coalition for Transportation Productivity (CTP) comprises about 200 shippers and allied associations dedicated to addressing
the safety, economic and environmental challenges facing our nation’s freight transportation network through carefully crafted truck
weight reform. CTP supports the Safe and Efficient Transportation Act, federal legislation that would raise the federal interstate weight
limit to 97,000 pounds for vehicles equipped with an additional axle. To find out more, visit www.transportationproductivity.org.
Supporting Associations
Ag-Haul
Agriculture Transportation Coalition (AgTC)
Alabama Forestry Association
The Aluminum Association
American Beverage Association
American Forest & Paper Association
American Frozen Food Institute
American Iron and Steel Institute
American Soybean Association
American Trucking Associations
Black Hills Forest Resource Association
California League of Food Processors
Council for Citizens Against Government
Waste(CCAGW)
Colorado Potato Administrative Committee
Colorado Timber Industry Association
Florida Chamber of Commerce
Florida Forestry Association
Florida Pulp & Paper Association
Fresh Produce Association
Food Marketing Institute
Forest Resources Association
Grocery Manufacturers Association
Hardwood Federation
Idaho Grower Shippers Association
Idaho Potato Commission
Intermountain Forest Association
International Foodservice Distributors Association
International Dairy Foods Association
Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI)
Kentucky Forest Industries Association
Louisiana Forestry Association
Maine Motor Transport Association
Maine Pulp and Paper Association
Manufacture Alabama
Metals Service Center Institute
Michigan Forest Products Council
Midwest Shippers’ Association
Minnesota Timber Producers Association
Mississippi Forestry Association
Mississippi Loggers Association
Missouri Forest Products Association
National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)
National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors
National Black Chamber of Commerce
National Confectioners Association
National Council of Farmer Cooperatives
National Industrial Transportation League
1
National Lumber & Building Material Dealers Assoc.
National Milk Producers Federation
National Potato Council
National Private Truck Council
National Taxpayers Union
Northeastern Loggers Association
North Carolina Forestry Association
Northwest Food Processors Association
Ohio Forestry Association
Ohio Manufacturers’ Association
Oregon Potato Commission
Paper & Forest Industry Transportation Committee
Pulp & Paperworkers’ Resource Council
Shelf-Stable Food Processors Association
Snack Food Association
Sports Video Group
Steel Manufacturers Association
United Fresh Produce Association
Virginia Forest Products Association
Washington State Potato Commission
Western Growers
Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce
Wisconsin Paper Council
Supporting Companies
A & M Transport, Inc.
American Gypsum Company
AbitibiBowater
Air Products
Anthony Forest Products
Anheuser Busch
Archer Daniel Midland(ADM)
Ball Brothers Produce
Basic American Foods
Bear Trucking, Inc.
Boise Cascade LLC
Boise Inc.
Campbell Soup Company
CEMEX, Inc.
Central Refrigerated Service
Challenger Motor Freight
Chicago Consulting
Claremont Forest Inc.
Coca-Cola Company
Columbia Forest Products
Con-way
Cotton Transportation &
Warehousing
CRST International
Dannon
Dairy Marketing Services, LLC
Dean Foods
Deere & Company
Delta Timber Company
Domtar
Diageo
Evergreen Packaging
DHL
Flambeau River Papers
Fleetmaster Express
Floyd Wilcox & Sons, Inc.
FMC Corporation
Fuel Transport US, Inc.
General Mills, Inc.
Georgia Pacific
Glatfelter
GPOD of Idaho
Gray & Oscar, LLC
Green Bay Packaging
H-E-B
The Hershey Company
Home Depot
Houg Special Services, Inc.
Idaho Forest Group
Idahoan Foods
International Paper
ITS Logistics
James Burg Trucking Company
Koch Companies Public Sector
Kraft Foods, Inc
Larsen Farms
Leprino Foods
Longview Fibre Paper & Packaging
LP Corp.
LyondellBasell Industries
Manuel Huerta Trucking, Inc.
Maverick USA
Maxum Petroleum
Mennel Milling Company
MillerCoors
Millis Transfer
Minnesota Forest Industries
Modern Transportation Services
MWV
National Frozen Foods Corp
Neiman Enterprises, Inc.
Nestlé USA
Nestlé Waters North America
Newark Group
NewPage
Oldcastle Architectural, Inc.
Oregon Transfer Company
Owens Corning
Philadelphia Reg. Port Authority
Piggyback Consolidators
Plum Creek
Potandon Produce
Potlatch Corp
Praxair
Prestage Farms
R & T Truck, Inc.
Raven Transport Co.
Rayonier
RockTenn
RPM Consolidated Services,
R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co.
Ruan Transport Co.
Safe Handling Inc.
Safeway, Inc.
Savage Services
Schwan Food Company
SC Johnson
Severstal
Simplot
Sun Glo of Idaho, Inc.
2
Sunny D
SuperValu Inc.
Sysco Corporation
Taylor Produce, Inc.
Temple-Inland
Thomas and Sons, Inc.
Total Transportation Services
Transportation Mgmt Solutions
TranzAct Technologies
True Value
Tyson Foods
UPM, Blandin Paper
U.S. Xpress
US Foodservice/Alliant Logistics
Unilever United States
United Aluminum Corporation
Verso Paper
Wada Farms
Werner Enterprises
West Central Cooperative
Weyerhaeuser