More than 2,200 local government leaders from across the country are warning Congress against raising federal truck weight limits, arguing that heavier rigs will bring more danger to motorists and more costs to taxpayers.
The Coalition Against Bigger Trucks (CABT) organized a letter signed by county commissioners, city officials, public works directors and engineers urging lawmakers to keep the current federal cap of 80,000 pounds in place. Congress is weighing a Surface Transportation Reauthorization bill, and industry groups are lobbying for a pilot program to allow trucks up to 91,000 pounds on interstate highways.
“We strongly oppose proposals in Congress that would allow any increase in truck weight or length. Heavier single-trailer trucks or longer double-trailer trucks would only make our current situation worse,” they wrote.
“On behalf of America’s local communities and our residents, we ask that you oppose any legislation that would allow any increase in truck weight or length.”
Opponents to lifting the current limits on truck size say the downsides — more highway deaths and increased infrastructure costs — outweigh the benefits.
“Crashes have been going up year over year,” said Emily DeLuca, CABT’s director of advocacy. “We’ve seen a more than 30 percent increase between 2013 and 2023.”
DeLuca said larger trucks take longer to stop and put more strain on law enforcement, who must investigate collisions and respond to roadside emergencies. “You do not want these bigger trucks next to you if you are on the road,” she said.
Steve Casstevens, a past president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, agrees. “Heavier trucks require longer stopping distances.”
County engineers are also warning about the long-term impact on infrastructure. Kevan Stone, executive director of the National Association of County Engineers, said current truck weights already strain local roads and bridges.
“The larger the truck, the heavier the truck, the more dangerous the truck,” Stone said. “It would become a financial burden on the taxpayer. You can tax the local taxpayer as much as you want, and you’ll still never come close to meeting the financial need to bring these roads and bridges up to a level where they can support that kind of size and weight.”
Stone cautioned that residents could see more bridge closures, detours or even tragedies if limits are raised. “We’re just not repairing bridges at the state we should,” he said during a March webinar.
Not everyone agrees with the warnings. Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.) supports a modest increase in truck weights for the federal interstate system, limited to states that opt in. He argues that trucks with six axles spread the weight more evenly and stop more quickly.
“Data shows trucks with six axles reduce road wear and tear, have more brakes than a typical five-axle tractor-trailer, and are shown to have a one-foot shorter braking distance,” Johnson said. “We also have a severe truck driver shortage in America, and we must find ways to increase the capacity of our supply chain.”
The Shippers Coalition, which represents major companies and trade associations, has called the opposition “fear mongering.” Deputy Executive Director Alexis Oberg said data show that increasing the limit to 91,000 pounds with an extra axle can actually enhance roadway safety.
DeLuca and her allies remain unconvinced. Even if heavier trucks are technically limited to interstates, she argued, they still must exit into towns to load, unload and refuel.
“Trucks are still going to need to load or unload, rest or cover as they are allowed to do in communities,” DeLuca said. “It’s just inviting additional truck traffic into your communities.”
The Surface Transportation Reauthorization bill expires in September 2026, and lawmakers are already working on a replacement. Committees in both the House and Senate are expected to release draft legislation later this year, with a House markup tentatively planned for November.
Until then, local leaders say they’ll keep pressing Congress to hold the line. “No one wants to see a tragedy,” Stone said. “Not for motorists, not for taxpayers, not for truck drivers.”
