Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="joe-daddy"][quote user="futuremodal"][quote user="joe-daddy"] <a href="http://www.ocianews.com/reports/freight.pdf">http://www.ocianews.com/reports/freight.pdf</a> "Studies have found that one 80,000-pound truck puts as much wear and tear on a road as 9,000-10,000 cars. Heavy-truck traffic results in greater costs to maintain existing facilities and the need to provide  increased structural strength on new and rehabilitated roads and bridges." [/quote]Think real hard about what you just relayed here - "one truck = 10,000 autos".  From the persective of road wear and tear, that is absolutely one of the dumbest statements ever to come from a "study".Fact - most wear and tear on roadways comes from contact friction of tire on pavement, not weight per axle.  The more tires that run over pavement, the more that pavement surface will degrade.  Add studded tires for the northern areas..........[/quote]I gave you the basis and source of my quote.  You, sir did not. If a road or bridge is engineered to withstand 80,000 lb vehicles,  I find it entirely believable that you could run thousands, perhaps even 10,000 autos if they weighed less than 5% of the design weight to achieve the same impact to the road.I'll bow out of this discussion, the logic it seems to me is grossly illogical and biased.Joe [/quote]Well Joe, you missed the point.  It is contact friction, not axle weight, that determines wear rates on pavement.  It is only on bridges where weight is more critical than contact friction.I read your link, and as best as I can tell it's just a propaganda tool for the Ohio contruction industry.  Of course their going to embellish as much as possible to convince people of the dire need for their services.  It's called advertising.  However, it wouldn't suprise me if that group is being funded by the rail industry, as all such anti-truck groups seem to be.Here's a more worthy link for you.....<a href="http://www.atri-online.org/research/results/economicanalysis/hfa_exec_summary_final.pdf">http://www.atri-online.org/research/results/economicanalysis/hfa_exec_summary_final.pdf</a>....from the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI).  Yeah, they're supported by the trucking industry - take it for what it's worth.  But it provides a much more comprehensive analysis of the parameters of highway funding.  The primary findings are:<ol><li>Costs of road maintenance have increased with the increase in vehicle numbers.  It is a function of volume, not weight per vehicle.</li><li>The fuel tax has not kept up with inflation, and it would take a 20 cent increase in the gasoline and diesel fuel tax to equal the fuel tax of 1993.</li><li>More and more highway funds are being diverted to non highway use over this same time period.</li></ol>The recommendations:<ol><li>Increase the fuel tax by 20 cents per gallon, then allow automatic increases in the fuel tax pegged to inflation.</li><li>Stop diverting highway funds to things like mass transit - make those entities pay their own way.  Speaking of transit vehicles...</li><li>Eliminate the fuel tax exemption for transit and government vehicles.  They're using the roads like the rest of us, make them pay their fair share.</li></ol>No where is there a mention of one truck equaling 10,000 vehicles, or other such nonsense.  As for max axle loads and the impact on roadway surfaces, it is recommended that weight per axle/axle group remain the same, but allow for absolute increases in GVW to increase the efficiency of trucks."Still, Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) officials note that trucks with extra axles, even though carrying heavier loads, actually exert less pressure per axle on road surfaces than standard trucks."<a href="http://www.erstarnews.com/2007/April/17truck.html">http://www.erstarnews.com/2007/April/17truck.html</a> Look Joe.  We both want to see more railroads.  That's a given.  But it's naive to think that any significant tonnage currently moving by truck can easily by shifted to rail.  The rail industry has shrunk itself to the point of little available excess capacity, and they seem to prefer COFC over TOFC, whereas trucking outfits would prefer a TOFC system that fits their fleet characteristics.  Railroads seem to prefer consolidated freight terminals as opposed to multiple industrial single car service, so that last mile stuff almost has to move by truck.  And the integrated closed access model does not allow for 3rd party innovation in supply chain improvement, such as localized TOFC.That's not bias, nor is it illogic.  It is hard cold reality.
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