Our serious injury lawyers handle many cases involving collisions between large trucks and automobiles. As large truck and tractor-trailer traffic rises on the nation’s highways, at least nine states are considering proposals to separate big rigs from cars on interstate highways. By designating certain lanes as “truck only” lanes, the states are hoping to reduce congestion, improve safety and increase commerce by allowing goods to move faster. Georgia, Ohio, Nevada, and several other states are studying a design to build or designate “truck only” lanes on various stretches of interstate highways. Georgia’s plan, would initially give consideration to “truck only” lanes on a 27 mile stretch of Interstate 75 northwest of Atlanta and a 20 mile stretch of Interstate 285 around the city. This proposal was considered after truck congestion in the area was predicted to increase by up to 60% in the next 20 years. At this time, we are aware of only the state of California having “truck only” lanes. California presently has two “truck only” lanes which cover only very small sections of highway.
Some experts contend that “truck only” lanes are a good idea for safety reasons alone. In 2005, it is estimated that 442,000 large trucks were involved in crashes. As we have blogged before, many of these tractor-trailer and large truck accidents involved automobiles, and in many of the cases, the drivers or passengers in automobiles were seriously injured or killed.
Many trucking advocates contend the “truck only” lanes would increase the opportunities for significant improvements in the transportation of freight on highways. According to these advocates, the key benefits of “truck only” lanes would be four fold. First, the public would be far less exposed to the risk of car/truck crashes. This wouldnot only save lives and prevent injury, but would also be an economic benefit to the trucking industry. Second, with lower traffic volumes in the lanes, trucks could operate more efficiently with reduced need for braking, accelerating and overtaking. Third, the added capacity would help alleviate congestion thereby reducing travel time and uncertainty of arrival time. Fourth, the argument for greater use of longer vehicles would be strengthened because they would not operate in the same lanes as passenger vehicles.
In general, passenger vehicles would benefit from “truck only” lanes in three ways. First, safety would improve. Second, the quality of the traveling experience would improve as motorists would be less concerned with having to move around large trucks. Third, “truck only” lanes would help improve speeds for passenger cars.
However, the issue of financing the construction of “truck only” lanes is extremely controversial. One estimate is that the cost of constructing a “truck only” lane alongside an existing rural interstate would cost approximately $2.5 million per lane mile, plus land acquisition costs. Obviously, the cost would vary considerably, depending on right-of-way availability, the topography of the land, the need for bridges and additional entrance and exit ramps.
Most proposals have assumed that the new lanes would be paid by tolls. Many questions arise about the appropriate level of tolls, which users should pay the tolls, and the extent to which tolls can cover the full cost. Predictably, most trucking industry representatives are opposed to placing the cost of constructing such lanes solely on the back of the trucking industry. The American Trucking Association has argued that truck operators help pay for the cost of current lanes so they have an equity position in them. They argue that to the extent this is true, a credit for this equity should be applied to the cost responsibility for the additional lanes to be constructed.
