unintended consequences. Containers that gross out at the max proposed weight would require only one container in each well of a car car. 2 would exceed weight limit of the wheels of the well. Might not even allow 2 max weight in adjaecent wells ?
Sam,
We don't see many of the steel haulers save the one coming from the south to Detroit but we have eleven axle gravel trains hauling 55 yards or so and other trucks running all the law will allow and then some. Spoke with one of our diesle bear deputies about one driver who had over 100,000 on an 80,000 truck.
Norm
Norm48327 Michigan allows the heaviest trucks in the nation. Come see what our roads look like, Hint: they suck.
Michigan allows the heaviest trucks in the nation. Come see what our roads look like, Hint: they suck.
As Norm 48327 mentioned Michigan's Road take a real beating from very heavy loads Possibly adopted for auto industry who received largeheavy loads of coil steel from the mills to the auto plants?)
See linked site @ http://www.todaystrucking.com/why-mackinnons-b-trains-are-heavyweight-champs
[Here is some of the following inforemation on the how's and why's of Michigan Truck Weight laws:]
FTL [snipped]"...Michigan's regulations are unique within the United States, and they're quite different than federal regulations governing Interstate highways.
In Canada, Ontario's regulations are very different than those specified in the RTAC agreement.Michigan allows up to 11 axles that, if put together properly, can result in a truck at 164,000 pounds (74,389 kilograms) even on Interstate highways, where grandfather rights supersede federal regulations.."[snipped]
Here is a photo link to some pictures of what some of theese highway truck combinations can look like. See Link @ http://www.hankstruckpictures.com/martin_phippard_trailers_07.html
And they sucked 30 years ago when I drove over them.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
tree68 Well, we can look at it this way - if they ruin the bridges, they'll have to be replaced...
Well, we can look at it this way - if they ruin the bridges, they'll have to be replaced...
At what cost to the taxpayers whose use of the bridges did not cause their ruination and at what cost to those whose use did cause the ruination of the bridges.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Gee, was there also a call to raise their highway taxes, too? Or will this benefit the truckers' bottom line at the detriment of the tax-payers?
I think so too. Simply increasing allowable weights may overtax the existing infrastructure, and any efficiencies gained in hauling more weight would probably be negated by higher road and structural upkeep costs. Having said that though, allowing more widespread use of B trains and turnpike doubles might be the way to go. Alot of box truck freight cubes out anyway, so allowing one tractor to pull two 53 ft. trailers on certain highways would reduce the total number of trucks without adding more weight.. i.e. one tractor and two trailers would replace two tractors and two trailers. For flatbed work the B train is (in my humble opinion) so much better than the standard tractor trailer configuration. The weight is spread out over more axles and the truck itself handles better (cornering and braking) than a standard tractor trailer.
Before we raise the weight limits for trucks we need to increase the structural requirements for roadways and bridges. What is in place now can't handle the current truck weight limits.
A driver (car, truck, horse & buggy, bicycle, whatever) who can't read a low clearance sign or stop when the lights are flashing at a railroad crossing, will hardly be deterred by a weight restriction sign. Looks like you won't be repairing bridges. You'll be replacing them.
Job security.
Tom
I'm all in favor of it, us civil engineers and road and bridge builders (actually repairers) need all the work we can get. Just adding more roads and bridges to the backlog of those needing heavy work . . .
Here in Pennsylvania, there are lots of bridges that are weight-restricted now and prohibit even the present truck weight limits, causing lengthy detours to get around them ("Truck Route for SR XXX" signs are all over the place). So even if this passes, it might not have a lot of practical effect, because there are lots of places these bigger rigs couldn't go anyway.
- Paul North.
Agreed, where is Ulrich?
Modeling the Cleveland and Pittsburgh during the PennCentral era starting on the Cleveland lakefront and ending in Mingo junction
Oh please, spare me. It was hard enough managing 80,000 lb. what with all the Class D drivers out there who were never put thru re-certification, never required to have professional training, never put on the national database to prevent them from crossing state lines to obtain another license when their's ran up to many points, never had to pass a DOT physical every other year, and trained to drive by other amatuer drivers who were in turn trained by still other amatuers.
"The American Trucking Association has called for Congress to authorize states to allow a 97,000-pound, six-axle weight limit or an 88,000-pound, five-axle weight limit, standardize trailer lengths at 53 feet and allow two 33-foot double trailers, up from 28 feet.....
“Iowa is an example of how heavier trucks would have a big impact on rails,” said Jeff Woods, marketing and business development at Cedar Rapids and Iowa City Railway. “We handle a lot of corn, which is very truck competitive.
“If trucks increased their weight limit it would likely take away from rail market share.”
http://thegazette.com/subject/news/sides-differ-as-pressure-mounts-to-increase-truck-weight-limit-20150407
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.