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 futuremodal [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by NS2317 [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal NS2317 - I'm curious. Why do you think that intersections will need to be rebuilt? Are you still of the mindset that you'd see double 53' combos driving on city streets? Did you miss the point I made that the likelyhood is such LCV's would be restricted to Interstate highways and other compatitble roads? What will happen is that trailers will be delivered to the roadhead singly, then combined at the head of the Interstate. When the destination is approached, the consist will be broken up back to single trailers for the final leg of the journey. And there would be no need to build all new TOFC equipment, since most spine cars are spec'd for 53' and some are spec'd for 57'. Trucking companies will just use 5th wheel dollies to connect the trailing trailer. An example of the savings by these new proposals will be the ability of trucks to pull two 20' containers (or a 40'/20' ; 40'/40' combo) using the b-train configuration, whereas now we are limited to one container per truck. It should be noted that both the 20/20 and 20/40 combos would still fit into the current length standard. [/quote] Futuremodal, So, which is it. Longer trailers with more weight or doubling up existing trailers that are high cube and can hold more weight? The article does mention doubles but it seems to me that the ATA is legislating longer trailers with more weight capacity. Regardless of the two, most of these longer trucks will still end up OTR and have to exit the highway to fuel, rest ect. With trucks stopping to double up don't you create a choke point, such as what the railroad calls a classifiaction yard? If trucks are using the highway, chances are they might as well just keep on trucking to the destination rather than hand the freight off to the railroad, anyway. Also keep in mind that your idea of handing off to the railroad will most likely take place in a cramped city area where space is rather scarce on roads that were designed for use by smaller delivery trucks at best. The same goes for delivery of these trailers to the destination. From experience, I would not reli***he idea of adding even more weight or length to a commercial vehicle. Even more so if the thing was double articulated! This legislation may look good on paper, but in practice sounds like a very bad idea, regardless of whatever illusionary economical benefits there might be, period. [/quote] Again, (and in a spate of deja vu) I ask: How is it that the Canadians are able to cope with heavier GVW trucks? Or do you remember all the nonsensical fuss created over some Western states allowing triple 30's on certain Interstates? Well, we've had triple combos for two decades now, where are the stats to back up the contention that longer LVC's will cause more congestion, etc.? You see, it's just nonsense to suggest such a thing, because what actually happens is an aggregate improvement in over the road efficiency. This efficiency can embody such benefits as reducing the actual number of rigs on the highway, reducing pollution, reducing fuel use per ton of cargo, etc. The suggestion put forth by some that we should reduce allowable GVW and trailer length would consequently have the opposite effect - more rigs on the highway, more pollution, lower fuel efficiency, etc. Now, why would anyone in their right mind want that to happen? [/quote] Ask a Canadian how they cope. You are living in a country with a love of it's automobiles. Ask any American what they think about sharing the roads with even larger and heavier commercial vehicles. Chances are, you would not get the response you desire. Those are the plain hard facts. Ask any OTR driver what they think of navigating larger and heavier vehicles through the public road system and again, probably not the response you would be looking for. So, for the ATA to be pushing for heavier and longer trucks seems to me to be nothing more than a "vehicle" to further some hidden agenda, which by the way has nothing to do with the railroads or the trucking industry. As for the original question, "For what possible reason would Class I railroads continue to oppose increased weight and length limits for trucks?", the answer is easy. "Give em' an inch and they'll take a mile." [:)]
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