General Discussion

 Perhaps if roads were built right in the first place damage from heavy traffic would be a moot point. How many roads with signs saying no trucks have pot holes and cracks?  The road around our pits are in good shape for the heavy traffic they see. The little road in a local neighborhood with no truck traffic is broken and full of holes.  A small compact car can put strain on a poorly built road. Trucks in Mass with an over weight permit can gross out at 103,000 lb. All 25 of our dump trailers have a total of 5 axles. Our 10 wheelers on 3 axles routinely get loaded and gross out at 70,000 lb. Which one would do more damage to a crappy road? The big trailer or the little dump truck?

  Write your reps and tell them to revamp the bidding process for road building. Low bidder means shoddy work. Look at the BIG DIG. (The worlds most expensive car wash and crusher)

   Pete

Rail fans should stick to topics they know. Their knowledge of Semi Trucks and LCVs is certainly lacking concerning weights,road damage and safety.

1. Large Truck Accident Rates:  See http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810989.PDF One out of nine traffic fatalities in 2007 resulted from a collision involving a large truck.  Large trucks are involved in fatal accidents about 25% more frequently than if accident rates were strictly proportional to their vehicle-miles traveled.
   
2. Pavement damage is proportional to the 4th power of the weight on the axles.  Thus, an 18,000 lb. axle does 3,000 times as much damage to pavement as a 2,000 lb. axle.  See http://pavementinteractive.org/index.php?title=ESALfor the math and the science.
   
3. Thus, if fuel taxes were levied proportional only to the cost of repaving highways, an 80,000 lb. GVW truck would pay approximately 6,000 times the fuel tax of a 4,000 GVW car, or, if federal and average state fuel tax combined was $0.50 cents per gallon for a car (it was $0.508/gallon in first quarter 2009), then the truck fuel tax would be $3,000/gallon, if the only consideration was to charge according to the pavement damage created.
   

What's fair is a political decision, and is decided by legislators elected by voters and by the voters themselves in ballot initiatives. 

RWM
 

RABEL:

Rail fans should stick to topics they know. Their knowledge of Semi Trucks and LCVs is certainly lacking concerning weights,road damage and safety.

This is THE MOST SENSIBLE posting in this thread so far.

I am a 21 year vetran, driving tractor trailer.

Ulrich: B-trains do handle better than A-Train (standard doubles) but with that extra articulation point, they do lose out to single long trailers a little in their road manners, still they are a VERY GOOD choice, when they fit the load. Here in the Pacific North West (PNW) we use them for more than just flat bedding. I have seen B-Train configurations in Curtain Van(an evolution of flat bed) chip trucks, tankers and even dry vans with sliding axles that completely slide under the trailer to access a standard loading dock. I'm not sure how they protect the lead trailer's rear fifth wheel though unloading wood chips, never watched it, but I have seen plenty on the highway.

  Anyone who is in FAVOR of highway safety would write their congressman in SUPPORT of TRIPLE TRAILER rigs and EQUAL SPEED LIMITS for ALL VEHICLES on the same roadways. Here in Oregon and Idaho, we allow triple trailer combinations to be licensed up to 105,500# GVW, and 105' long. Statistics show these vehicles to be very safe, despite what the unknowlegdeable about them may think. Making ONE speed limit for ALL vehicles on any given roadway is much safer than these stupid split speed limits that were pushed for by elected politicians, not trained traffic engineers. ALL vehiclles moving at the same speed is safer by a factor of ridiculous, than forcing a percentgage of vehicles to travel at a different speed than that of the predominent flow of traffic.

  Increasing fuel efficiency WILL NOT lower truckings contribution to highway taxes, trucks do not pay a fuel tax based on gallons of fuel used, like automobiles do. Trucks are charged a WEIGHT/MILE tax, the heavier the vehicle is licensed to operate, the higher the mileage tax rate is, this would actually INCREASE the highway tax that trucks pay, because the mileage tax is the same for that vehicle whether it is loaded or empty, or 65% loaded, it still pays the licensed tax rate per mile. 

  Don't kid yourselves, TRUCKS are subsidizing cars, not the other way around, trucks pay for more than their share of road repairs. If the motoring public were to be taxed at an equitable rate compared to trucking for their portion of highway costs, they WOULD be writing their congressmen, screaming to high heaven.

  The states of Oregon and Washington, FINALLY started studying car/truck accidents, and no surprise to the trucking community, they found that in more than 76% of the accidents the AUTOMOBILE was at fault, not the truck. As a result of these studies, both states started posting signs to give more room, when changing lanes in front of a truck, and started issuing tickets to the offenders. The State of Washington has gone so far as actually having officers ride along in trucks, and when(NOT IF) it is cut off by an automobile (or another truck, not as common though) the officer radios a patrol car(usually unmarked) in the area just for that reason, and gives instructions to write the ticket.

  If you are concerned about highway safety, then step back and really think about your own driving habits.

  I have more than 2,000,000 miles experience and working on 3,000,000.

Guess which one I MISS driving.

Doug

The average total fuel, tire, and retail tax paid by an 80,000 lb. GVW truck per year is 35 times what a typical auto pays, according to this source: http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=8433, which uses ATA, FHWA, and various state DOT sources.

The question is, does a truck use 35 times of the capital cost and maintenance cost of the roadway system?  More than 35X?  Less than 35x?  Purely on a pavement replacement cost, the truck uses is 3,000 times as costly as a car, not 35 times.  But pavement cost isn't the whole picture, either.  According to the FHWA, the typical 80,000 lb. GVW truck pays 80% of the costs it imposes on the highway system and the other 20% is a public subsidy to the trucking firms, their shippers, and the customers of their shippers paid by other highway users.  The FHWA also found that a 100,000 lb or heavier GVW truck covers only 40% of the costs it imposes on the highway system.  See http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/otps/costallocation.htm, 2000 addendum. 

RWM

RABEL:

Rail fans should stick to topics they know. Their knowledge of Semi Trucks and LCVs is certainly lacking concerning weights,road damage and safety.

Well, I was once employed as Market Research Supervisor by International Harvester (changed to Navistar) when they were the largest heavy duty/medium duty truck manufacturer in North America.  So I might just know a thing or two about trucks.  Of course, I don't know as much as you do, but I do know something.

We took a good look at LCVs because we thought they would reduce the demand for tractors, which we built.

If you put a LCV such as a Turnpike Double (twin 53' trailers behind one tractor) on a curved on ramp going upgrade to access an Interstate...If you do that...then you stop it...which will often happen due to traffic...It's going to have a very difficult time restarting.  If you throw in normal highway conditions such as snow, rain, ice, etc., it's going have an even more difficult time starting.  Blocking traffic is not acceptable.

Current tractor trailers impede traiffic significantly in urban areas such as Chicago.  In the normal stop 'n go they take longer to go than autos.  This backs up traffic behind them.  Make 'em bigger and you'll make the problem much worse.  The may work just fine in most of Canada, or even in Nevada and Utah, but they'll be a nightmare where a lot of people are driving, such as Chicago, St. Louis and all points east of the Big River.

And a "Supper Truck" load of lettuce from Salinas to New York will go through Chicago.  It's an Interstate hub just like it's a rail hub.  And no one living here needs that additional aggrevation trying to get on home after a day's work.

Railway Man:

1. Pavement damage is proportional to the 4th power of the weight on the axles.  Thus, an 18,000 lb. axle does 3,000 times as much damage to pavement as a 2,000 lb. axle.  See http://pavementinteractive.org/index.php?title=ESALfor the math and the science.
   
2. Thus, if fuel taxes were levied proportional only to the cost of repaving highways, an 80,000 lb. GVW truck would pay approximately 6,000 times the fuel tax of a 4,000 GVW car, or, if federal and average state fuel tax combined was $0.50 cents per gallon for a car (it was $0.508/gallon in first quarter 2009), then the truck fuel tax would be $3,000/gallon, if the only consideration was to charge according to the pavement damage created.
   

What's fair is a political decision, and is decided by legislators elected by voters and by the voters themselves in ballot initiatives. 

RWM

When you calculate the tax revenue, wouldn't you consider the amount of fuel used by a vehicle as well? MPG means something.

Exactly.  That's why I inserted the caveat, "if the only consideration was pavement damage."  The FHWA calculations, if you look at the link I provided, show how MPG affects the cost vs. revenue.

RWM

As I stated earlier Railfans  should stick to topics they know as compared to LCVs.

They are in fact operated safely east of the Big Muddy. MI. IN.OH,PA. and  NY.

One of you appears to be a NiMBY from the Windy.

RABEL:

As I stated earlier Railfans  should stick to topics they know as compared to LCVs.

They are in fact operated safely east of the Big Muddy. MI. IN.OH,PA. and  NY.

One of you appears to be a NiMBY from the Windy.

I think you left out MA. 

Seriously, they are allowed to a very limited extent on specific routes such as the Indiana Toll Road.  They are not allowed to roam the Interstate System.  I did not say they weren't safe.  I said they screwed up traffic, and they do.

I have a truck driver freind who reports that many drivers don't want anything to do with more than one trailer because of the delicate handling problems. I have been on the roads...the super highways...when those trains go by and have seen how the will swerve and not necessarily follow in line at higher speeds (65+); at normal two lane road speeds, 50 or less, they appear ok, but are really  pounding the pavement.  No, trains on tracks, trucks on roads.  Safer that way for all involved. 

Posted by Railwayman:

Large Truck Accident Rates:  See http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810989.PDF One out of nine traffic fatalities in 2007 resulted from a collision involving a large truck.  Large trucks are involved in fatal accidents about 25% more frequently than if accident rates were strictly proportional to their vehicle-miles traveled.

 This does nothing to show that trucks are dangerous, that just shows how many trucks were INVOLVED in accidents, it does not even suggest who was at fault in those accidents. That is akin to saying a high percentage of shooting victims were not armed, so to solve the problem, pass legislation requiring everybody to carry a weapon. On the same logic, it can be asserted that in grade crossing accidents a train or other railway equipment is involved nearly 100% of all grade crossing accidents, the TRAINS must have been at fault.

  I have heard for years people say that there should be seperate highways for cars and trucks, the trucks while knowing that will never happen (any time soon anyway) would be more in favor of that than automobile drivers would, it would eliminate one of the biggest risks we face out there everyday. It would be very interesting to see the stasticts after that, I have no doubt which highways would have the fewest accidents per mile driven. You would be seeing automobile drivers trying to use the truck only roads, because they would be SAFER there than driving on the truck prohibitted roads.

  If you are concerned about highway safety:

Leave earlier, and give yourself enough time to get where you are going, at a reasonable speed, and allow for traffic delays.

PUT THAT %*#&*!^ CELL PHONE DOWN, hang up and DRIVE.

Write your Congressperson, encouraging larger vehicles.

Seriously, step back and HONESTLY evaluate YOUR OWN driving habits, Very, Very FEW people consider themselves, or admit that they are BAD DRIVERS, but there are so many bad drivers out there it is scary

  I wont claim that there are NO bad drivers in the cabs of trucks, but the percentage of them are a lot smaller than that behind the wheel of automobiles. Read all five pages of RWM's safety link, you will come to the same conclusion. Trucks are struck 2.7 times more often from the REAR than automobiles, but the automobiles have much shorter stopping distances. This would also suggest that EQUAL, not split speed limits would be safer(There is no doubt in my mind this is true)

  Someone wrote earlier to the effect that they have a friend who is a driver, and he didn't like/wouldn't drive larger or combination vehicles. Then HE shouldn't. There are people who wont drive SUVs, or some that wont drive small cars (I DON"T). Larger/Longer vehicles can be as safe as the rest of the motoring public will allow them to be.

  As a 20+year, 2,000,000+ mile driving vetran, this may surprise many for me to say, but I am one of the first to acknowledge that Long Haul Trucking should have been gone a LONG time ago, but not because of any safety reasons, but rather economic. I am sure that the numbers will vary some between various Points A and Points B, and also by commedity carried, but the most effecient way to move freight (in MY opinion) would be in Domestic shipping containers, with the road haul being in the range of 500-1000 miles, farther than that should go by rail, with rubber tired delivery at the pick up/delivery points. The exceptions may be High value items such as computers and electronics, and perishables. Rail still can't compete with trucks in the Coast to Coast, dock to dock time. The reason that long haul still exists is because everybody is in to big of a hurry to allow an extra couple days in transit time for anything. They want to order TOMORROW and get it YESTERDAY, that is the #1 reason that long haul trucking still exsists today.

Doug

Neither I nor FHWA made the claim, Doug.  Correlation isn't necessarily cause.

RWM

Washington state did their own road test many years ago using a set of doubles & a 45 footer with the same gross weights. The doubles did more damage to the roadway. The governor then decided that triples would only encourage the use of single axle bogeys. Triples are still not allowed in Washington.

Railway Man:

Neither I nor FHWA made the claim, Doug.  Correlation isn't necessarily cause.

RWM

There are many who would have interpreted it that way. The misperceptions regarding the trucking industry are as great, or greater than the ones involving railroading, likely because people interact even more with trucks, than they do with trains in their daily lives.

  As railfans, we have all seen things on TV and in the movies that we know just aren't reality, as a Professional driver, I see similar mistakes that many railfans and others would watch and not know any better. Both industries are grossly misunderstood in many ways, and I did not want there to be another.

Doug