Assembly Joint Resolution 8 by Assembly Member Mike Honda opposes the use of triple trailers in California based on safety issues. In what is simply a non-binding resolution, the issue over bringing triple trailers to California is dividing the industry and its representatives. The text of AJR 8 includes derogatory and inaccurate statements about the safety record of trucks and about the damage caused by the weight of trucks to the highway infrastucture.

UHCA has historically opposed the use of triples in California based on the economic fall-out to California-based companies who cannot compete with the mega-fleet interstate carriers. The California Trucking Association argues that triples would bring $18 per hour jobs to the high-unemployment towns of Adelanto and Barstow. These cities have volunteered to serve as bulk break facilities for a study on the feasibility of introducing triples to California, with the study referred to as a demonstration project or “pilot program”.

UHCA contends that for every $18 per hour job brought to these Mojave Desert communities there would be a loss of jobs to the California intrastate trucking community. Once shippers are aware that Longer Combination Vehicles are available, the demand will be immediate and devastating. Smaller to medium-sized companies cannot change their fleet profiles in the short amount of time that would be required to remain competitive. Knowing the competitive environment of the California trucking industry, there would be little or no rate increase for hauling an additional trailer. Interstate carriers with existing LCV fleets would dominate the market, thereby driving smaller companies out of business.

However foreboding and grim the scenario presented above may seem, the battle against triples is not being waged on an economic forum. Objection to triples is being raised on safety issues, thereby bringing into play the usual anti-trucking coalitions. The phrase, “politics makes strange bedfellows,” rang especially true in the debate over AJR 8. UHCA found itself on the same side of this issue as long-time nemesis CRASH. While we fully expect and are prepared to battle CTA over the issue of triples, we are uncomfortable with the thought of being on the same side of any issue with CRASH, an anti-trucking group whose primary financial backing for years has been the railroad industry. UHCA supports AJR 8 solely for economic reasons, as the statistics from those states where triples currently run present no cause for concern over the safety of running triples.

The ugly side of AJR 8 came in the form of certain statements about the safety record of trucking. These statements were inserted in the bill at CRASH’s behest. In order to effectively argue against keeping particular anti-trucking language in the resolution, UHCA contacted the CHP in order to gather some authoritative statistics about the safety of trucking in California. Page 19 of the CHP’s “1995 Annual Report of Fatal and Injury Motor Vehicle Traffic Collisions” contained the statistics UHCA needed to temper some of CRASH’s outlandish claims. UHCA’s legislative division was able to use these statistics, along with other convincing arguments, to persuade Assembly Member Mike Honda to delete controversial language from his resolution. UHCA was solely successful in removing substantial amounts of the misrepresentative language from the original version of the bill. Most of the hostile language has been removed from AJR 8, although enough remains to infuriate all truckers. Since the resolution is merely a statement to Congress of the state’s desire to maintain a freeze on longer combination vehicles in California, UHCA opted to ignore this language in the interest of the greater good. Because of the hardship placed on UHCA members were triples to be allowed in California, we believe triples to be more “anti-trucking” than the disagreeable language that remains in this resolution. The Owner Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) joined UHCA in support of AJR 8 on June 17.

To put things in perspective, AJR 8 has absolutely no binding effect in law. As a resolution, AJR 8 simply “would memorialize the President and the Congress to maintain the current standards relating to truck size and weight set forth in the federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991.” Assuming AJR 8 passes the California Legislature, the federal government can choose to respect or ignore our resolution--and by no means is bound to do one or the other.

If AJR 8 had any effect in law, UHCA would not have been willing to accept some of the language that remains in the resolution. We felt that it was important to become involved in the discussions and negotiations over AJR 8 as we see this as an early indication of California’s stance on the use of triples within our borders, but we did not focus a great deal of our legislative resources on the promotion of this resolution. When the debate over triples matures to a point of actual and direct consequence to members of UHCA, we will increase our attention to detail exponentially. We will become adamant opponents of any and all disagreeable language about the trucking industry that may find its way into law. And UHCA will continue to fight against the introduction of triples into California based upon economic factors.

Back to Volume 35 No. 2 Article Selection