Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
ATA now supports longer and/or heavier trucks

Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by ouengr I am a civil engineer and I have designed transportation systems. I can think of no idea more short sighted and stupid than to increase the allowable length or weight of highway trailers. Our bridges are not designed to support the total weight regarldess of the axle configuartion. The "distribution" of the load on the asphalt will results in minimal improvment since the rebond time for the asphalt is practically zero. This will result in a jackhammer effect compounding the damage to the asphalt.[/quote] So you're saying Canadian bridges and roadway pavements are superior to the US versions? And you also seem to be saying that it is better for 60 tons of cargo to be moved in two separate truck/trailers rather than being consolidated on one truck, regardless of weight displacement via wheel/pavement interaction. You as a civil engineer should know that more damage will result from the 2 x 80k as opposed to the 1 x 150k (axle/wheel weights being equal). Those light load bridges you refer to have been for the most part replaced from major highway corridors. Can you give an example of an at risk bridge on our current Interstate System, e.g. one that would deteriorate at an accelerated rate if we replace 2 x 80k with 1 x 150k? Remember, doubling the allowable GVW will not result in a doubling of total tonnage moving over our highways. We are assuming total aggregate tonnage will only continue to increase at currently predicted trends. Why not actually decrease total aggregate tare tonnage relative to load tonnage? [quote]QUOTE: We need to get the mid distance and long distance trucks off of the roads and on the rails. The roadrailer system is one of the most efficient means of transportation today. Frankly, the ATA is greedy and is not concerened with who they kill or the additional expenses they thrust on the American people. [:(!] [/quote] Whereas the AAR and its minions are not the least bit greedy, have grave concern for who they kill/hospitalize/put on disability, and are deeply concerned about the additional expenses they thrust on the American people?[(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D] Perhaps you did not get the memo - 1. The railroads are running at near capacity, due to decades of purposeful retrenchment to reduce *excess* capacity. They simply do not have room to accomodate all those mid and long distance trucks, even if they could be bothered to accomodate the business. 2. Rail corridors are few and far between compared to our Interstate and US Highway network. As a civil engineer, how do you propose to address this lack of rail network saturation across the country? 3. Because of terminal consolidation/line abandonments/etc. the railroads now more than ever are almost totally dependent on trucks to get the goods to and from the railhead. Even mid and long haul trucks can act as feeders to the railroads, due to the fact of #2 above. I have asked railroaders to answer this question, and have gotten no legit responses: Do you really think the US rail industry is better off if truck weights and lengths are limited? If so, how so?
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag