ATA now supports longer and/or heavier trucks

[Anonymous]

I took a few of those coils out of Hammond and boy did it "Teeter" side to side on that one elevated highway ramp with the 20 mph restriction 40 feet off the ground. I took that one at 8 mph feeling it sway. Not again thank you.

10 chain and 10 straps I used on that monster. Ive hauled many a load but that one I recall almost perfectly.

Another thing about gross weights is bridges.

I recall a bridge in Boring Maryland (Try finding THAT one on Google) where it is a little wooden bridge rated at 4 ton across a set of rail tracks. A smaller sign showed that the fire department could take 3 axle pumpers across it and I used that to get my Mack with a 30 foot milk tanker across loaded 2-3 times a week on my route.

Increasing gross weights only increases damage and strain on countless small bridges rated or not.

[Anonymous]

If you believe that safety is not compromised
by the larger mass and weight of longer and
heavier trucks, then you apparently failed
every Physics course you have ever taken.

Dave

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Here's something to bandy about....

http://www.aset-safety.org/study/study.html

"US DOT acknowledges that VMT and safety are tied closely together. In other words, a change from a 80,000 pound five-axle semitrailer to a 97,000 pound six-axle semitrailer would result in fewer accidents (approximately 11% fewer if the VMT model is maintained throughout the study). Heavier vehicles are not inherently more prone to instability or roll-over, rather payload distribution is the most critical factor in controlling rollovers. Driver operational characteristics such as travel speed around curves, the “tightness” of the curve, etc… are also important factors.

Braking performance is admitted to not be particularly influenced by changes in vehicle sizes and weights, assuming that the required number of axles and brakes are added as the vehicles weight increases and the vehicle's brakes are well-maintained and functional. The requirement that antilock braking systems (ABS) be fitted to all new tractors and trailers is expected to enhance vehicle stability and control. Some incremental diminishments can be expected as truck weights are increased, but the greater concern in braking ability relates to longer combination vehicles."

Meaning safety is not comprimised in shifting to higher GVW for trucks.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

I see that FM is holding to his belief that lower transportation costs will solve the balance of trade deficit and stop the export of manufacturing and data-processing jobs overseas.

[edbenton]

Yes he is however his model just does not work out in the real world.

[Leon Silverman]

Futuremold:
My statement about traffic congestion increasing was meant to say that traffic congestion will increase Regardless of the size of trucks on the road. Traffic includes busses, cars, SUVs, etc. Even, if, for arguments sake, their will be fewer tractor trailers on the road if we allow the higher GWV, the increase in overall traffic will still occur because whatever reduction may be realized by going to the larger trucks, the reduction will more than offset by the increased number of other types of vehicles on the highway.

[edbenton]

Leon you nailed it on the head heck chicago doubled capacity on I-55 10 years ago and now it is over capacity they are now talking about double decking it from the I-294 in to downtown that would be interesting to see not to mention cost prohibative to do. I just know this FM reminds me of a college educated dispatcher I had at a company called Florilli and he had no clue what it took to run out there. He once told me I had to run 1600 miles in 23 hours or I was fired and he did that over a satalite dispatch system. I told him get out you map see the terrian and also what is the computer code so I can run over 100 so I can make it. Needless to say that load was late by 20 hours. This Ahole ended up married to the bosses daughter and now that company is struggling. I wonder why.

[edbenton]

Looks like I finally shut Futuremodal up YES!!!

[Anonymous]

Let's see,

We got dsktc disputing DOT studies sitting right in his face, but he accuses me of failing physics. Well dsktc, you've officially sunk to a new low in terms of credibility. However, I'll give you an out: Procur a study or two that supports your flat earth view, then at least we'll know you're not one of those guys that has covered his house in aluminum foil to ward off spy sattelites.

Leon,

WTFAYTA? If congestion will increase irregardless of GVW standards (as you now state in your last post), why did you originally allege that increasing GVW standards would ostensibly increase highway congestion (as you alleged in your previous posts)?

PS - Don't answer, just let it go, because you don't have a clue.

Paul,

You are disingenuous as usual. I did not say lowering transport costs for domestic producers relative to importers would eliminate the trade deficit. But it will have a positive effect on reducing the trade deficit. Or do you want to argue that point as well?

Ed - Didya git yer elk yet?

[Anonymous]

WTFAYTA? IIRC, IMHO, YAAFI! GBUADT YPPI. [alien]

[edbenton]

Fmodal you have no idea what it means to be in charge of 80K lbs do you try seeing a family of 4 stopped in front of you and you are trying to stop in one hell of a hurry. I got it stopped but was still hit by someone coming the oher way when I lost a brake line. I go to sleep everynight in June seeung that 7 year old face looking at me with fear in her eyes. So do not attack me by asking me if I got me elk. I have seen more blood on the roads than I can stand. So quit acting like a child and grow up. I approched everything from a drivers point of view you however took the chance to see how low yu could sink.