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 beefmalone The idea that bigger/longer trucks will create jobs or stem the tidal wave of job loss to overseas is a red herring. Transportation is NOT why we're losing jobs. It's CHEAP LABOR. I think that cross-pacific container trip would more than account for any savings by keeping the jobs over here, but we still lose them. Our road system is just NOT DESIGNED for these super-long trucks. It's bad enough now...I can't imagine how much worse gridlock there would be with them 2x as long not to mention being able to stop those behemoths in an emergency...whoever is in front of them is pretty much screwed. [/quote] Again, I ask: How is it that the Canadians are able to cope with 150k trucks? You people make it sound as if the sky will fall if trucks are allowed their natural GVW's and lengths. How do Canadian truck safety stats compare to US stats? And where is this "tidal wave" of job losses overseas? Or have you even checked the latest unemployment/average income numbers for the US? To reiterate, no one said improving the load factor of the US transportation system would stop any such job losses overseas, as much as they may actually happen. What is true however is that improving the load factor will also improve the cost numbers, which in competitive markets (such as trucking) end up being passed on to consumers (unlike monopolistic markets such as railroading). Why do you consider that a bad thing, so much so that you would oppose that end? The hyperbole being directed in opposition of allowing trucks to approach natural weight and length limits is the real red herring.
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