Railroad Bridge Disasters

[Modelcar]

....It's just a bit overly optimistic figuring FDR had a crystal ball that was that clear.

Of course much of the work was done for upcoming war concerns, but  a portion of what was done was to put people to work, and of course at the same time, construct much needed infrastructure.  And much was created and constructed during the 30's period.  And of all things, during the Great Depression.

Maybe we could take a page from his play book and update it to figure what to do to our sagging structures now.

[rjemery]

Actually, the main reason for most infrastructure repairs was NOT to provide jobs for the unemployed during the Depression, as some history books claim. The main reason was purposely unspoken -- as not to cause a general panic or unnecessary political fallout. more

Do you have at least one credible source to support that contention, a source that can cite papers or documents from FDR's presidential library or from those working in his administration?  From all that I have read, the economic program was all about jobs.  All other benefits as you mention were ancillary (albeit fortuitous) and not by hidden design.

I have personally spoken with many who lived through the Great Depression.  From those and other first person accounts, I am very cognizant of the mood of the nation as it began and evolved througout FDR's four terms.  I am also aware of FDR's critics and certain failings in his administration.

By the late 1930's, without doubt and long before Pearl Harbor, the nation knew it was going to war.  That was one reason why there were so many active isolationists, Charles A. Lindbergh among them.

[Modelcar]

....Wow, that inspection report is just  a bit alarming, considering it's describing problems with an interstate bridge of heavy use.

[rjemery]

Here is link to previous inspections and recommendations for I-35W

http://www.startribune.com/462/story/1350056.html

 

The tort lawyers are salivating over that!

I wonder how many other bridges in MN or elsewhere have a similar report history.  You can bet investigative reporters will be sifting through all the records. 

Still, I wonder if bridge checks include railroad bridges, or is all the attention and focus strictly on highway bridges. 

[J. Edgar]

I can think of a good solution to the bridge problems.  Since 18 wheeler trucks provide the single largest risk factor to any bridge, with their up to 80,000 lbs stressing the poop covered welds, we could, just ship by. . . train?  What da ya think? 

Or we could adjust the taxes on these trucks to make sure they pay sufficient revenue to cover the all the risks that the public incurs from their use of the public highways. 

Probably not very popular ideas inside the beltway, reckon?

Joe

 

 

 trucks in MI are allowed upto 160,000 lbs..........ad are taxed accordingly......and the state is still "broke".......Pres. Bush said it best this morning (8-9-07)...."congress and the states need to look at how they spend the money...not just raise taxes"

[J. Edgar]

Actually, the main reason for most infrastructure repairs was NOT to provide jobs for the unemployed during the Depression, as some history books claim. The main reason was purposely unspoken -- as not to cause a general panic or unnecessary political fallout. more

Do you have at least one credible source to support that contention, a source that can cite papers or documents from FDR's presidential library or from those working in his administration?  From all that I have read, the economic program was all about jobs.  All other benefits as you mention were ancillary (albeit fortuitous) and not by hidden design.

I have personally spoken with many who lived through the Great Depression.  From those and other first person accounts, I am very cognizant of the mood of the nation as it began and evolved througout FDR's four terms.  I am also aware of FDR's critics and certain failings in his administration.

By the late 1930's, without doubt and long before Pearl Harbor, the nation knew it was going to war.  That was one reason why there were so many active isolationists, Charles A. Lindbergh among them.

 theres no doubt FDR knew the war would come to us....but in 1933????   '35?.....heck even as late as 1939  ( according to Rogers E. M. Whitaker officer in the Traffic Control Center of he Transportation Corps 1940-1946) the US RR's were in no way shape or form ready to handle anything more then the "recovering" economy in the US...i too have spoken at great length to those who lived thru the Great Depression....my grandpa and grandma both built B25 Mitchels at Willow Run in the war..and past away in the late 80's...my mother was born in 1926 and ive always had a thing for US history.....we as a Nation are still paying for FDR's programs and liberal line of thinking

[Anonymous]

Listening to the news today, it is just not clear what justifies the earlier suggestion that the gusset plates are defective in design.  The point being stressed tonight, seemingly in rebuttal to the charge of plates being improperly designed, is that the bridge has many different size gusset plates, each designed according to its position in the bridge.  There is no indication of how that refutes the charge that the plates are wrongly designed, however.  The news tonight almost sounds as if it is re-writing history in that the design flaw story never happened.

That inspection report linked to an earlier post sure is interesting.

 

[rjemery]

Listening to the news today, it is just not clear what justifies the earlier suggestion that the gusset plates are defective in design.  The point being stressed tonight, seemingly in rebuttal to the charge of plates being improperly designed, is that the bridge has many different size gusset plates, each designed according to its position in the bridge.  There is no indication of how that refutes the charge that the plates are wrongly designed, however.  The news tonight almost sounds as if it is re-writing history in that the design flaw story never happened.

 

From http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2007/080807.htm

NTSB Advisory
National Transportation Safety Board
Washington, DC 20594
August 8, 2007

UPDATE ON NTSB INVESTIGATION OF COLLAPSE OF I-35W BRIDGE IN MINNEAPOLIS

... NTSB investigators have observed a design issue with gusset plates at particular locations (gusset plates are steel plates that tie steel beams together). Safety Board investigators are in the process of verifying the loads and stresses on the gusset plates at these locations, as well as the materials used in constructing the gusset plates. This information has been shared with the other parties to the investigation, including the Federal Highway Administration.

[rjemery]

theres no doubt FDR knew the war would come to us....but in 1933????   '35?.....heck even as late as 1939  ( according to Rogers E. M. Whitaker officer in the Traffic Control Center of he Transportation Corps 1940-1946) the US RR's were in no way shape or form ready to handle anything more then the "recovering" economy in the US...i too have spoken at great length to those who lived thru the Great Depression....my grandpa and grandma both built B25 Mitchels at Willow Run in the war..and past away in the late 80's...my mother was born in 1926 and ive always had a thing for US history.....we as a Nation are still paying for FDR's programs and liberal line of thinking

Hitler became Chancellor in early 1933, and it is possible that by the end of that year, his views as expressed in Mein Kampf become known (if not already known) by European and American leaders, raising a warning.  As Hitler further strengthened his grip on power, the die was cast by 1935, and by 1938, Hitler's war machine exceeded anything on the European continent.

As for the railroads both prior to and during WW II, they were in good shape.  Granted there were some bankruptcies by some roads, but by and large, the major railroads offered relatively secure employment and represented one bright spot in an otherwise dismal period.

[Modelcar]

....J Edgar:

FDR put forth an effort to help our struggling economy during the 30's.  You might consider that it was a lot of help to a lot of needy citizens at the time.  Not just dollars and cents you seem to regret now.....

I lived through the Depression and times were less than rosy.  I'm sure glad we had some one guiding the ship trying to get out of the bad mess.  His efforts might even have helped some other than Liberals too.

[Poppa_Zit]

Actually, the main reason for most infrastructure repairs was NOT to provide jobs for the unemployed during the Depression, as some history books claim. The main reason was purposely unspoken -- as not to cause a general panic or unnecessary political fallout. more

Do you have at least one credible source to support that contention, a source that can cite papers or documents from FDR's presidential library or from those working in his administration?  From all that I have read, the economic program was all about jobs.  All other benefits as you mention were ancillary (albeit fortuitous) and not by hidden design.

I have personally spoken with many who lived through the Great Depression.  From those and other first person accounts, I am very cognizant of the mood of the nation as it began and evolved througout FDR's four terms.  I am also aware of FDR's critics and certain failings in his administration.

By the late 1930's, without doubt and long before Pearl Harbor, the nation knew it was going to war.  That was one reason why there were so many active isolationists, Charles A. Lindbergh among them.

Sure.

Leadership in Isolation: FDR and the Origins of the Second World War by William E. Kinsella, Jr.

Click here for more from Roosevelt Library

[rjemery]

Leadership in Isolation: FDR and the Origins of the Second World War by William E. Kinsella, Jr.

I have made borrowing arrangements for the book.  I hope it contains plenty of footnotes and/or endnotes.  I look forward to reading it.  I am always interested in different historical points of view, as long as they are well founded.

[Anonymous]

I can think of a good solution to the bridge problems.  Since 18 wheeler trucks provide the single largest risk factor to any bridge, with their up to 80,000 lbs stressing the poop covered welds, we could, just ship by. . . train?  What da ya think?

What makes you think that the stuff riding in a truck didn't also ride on a train?  

Of course, to shift most truck stuff to train, we'd need to build about a million more miles of track to allow trains access to destinations that are currently only accessable by truck.  Lot's of rails laid down city streets so that boxcar can be unloaded right at the retail facility!

And of course, to make up for slow rail service, the long haul railroads would all have to go HSR just to compensate for the time penalty of aggregation/disaggregation of consists.

Now, I'm certainly not opposed to saturating the US countryside with a spaghetti-like network of tracks, but...........wouldn't it be cheaper just to fix the highway bridges?

 

Or we could adjust the taxes on these trucks to make sure they pay sufficient revenue to cover the all the risks that the public incurs from their use of the public highways. 

Well, we'd have to adjust the truck taxes down.  Trucks pay more than their fair share.  The problem is that so much fuel tax revenue is diverted to pork boondoggles (aka the Big Dig), mass transit (here's an idea - LETS MAKE TRANSIT USERS PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE!), neighborhood sewer projects, that sort of thing.  How about we just use fuel tax revenues for our intercity roads, and let other taxes pay for that other stuff?

[spokyone]

How about we just use fuel tax revenues for our intercity roads, and let other taxes pay for that other stuff?

Oh. You mean like back in the 50's?

[Anonymous]

Here is an informative piece that focuses on the latest engineering news.

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2007/08/09/888124-metal-plates-examined-in-bridge-collapse

A quote from the article:

 

"On Thursday, NTSB officials said "people have run maybe a little bit too far" with the statement on the gussets."

 

This is the backpedaling that I detected in yesterday evening's local news on the gusset plates.  In suggesting that people may have run too far with the statement on the gussets, what I don't get is the basis for the statement in the first place.  The only way to know whether the gussets were inadequate in design is to analyze the design.  A damaged gusset plate does not prove anything about its design.  So how can they throw out the suggestion of inadequate design without actually seeing the mathematics that point that way?  And if there is mathematics that points that way, why haven't they revealed that?  Instead they tell us that we have run a little bit too far.

[joe-daddy]

Well, we'd have to adjust the truck taxes down.  Trucks pay more than their fair share.  The problem is that so much fuel tax revenue is diverted to pork boondoggles (aka the Big Dig), mass transit (here's an idea - LETS MAKE TRANSIT USERS PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE!), neighborhood sewer projects, that sort of thing.  How about we just use fuel tax revenues for our intercity roads, and let other taxes pay for that other stuff?

This is just impossible for me to believe.  

A fully loaded truck weighs more than 20 times more than a fully loaded automobile.  Automobiles subsize the roads. That is a long known but seldom discussed fact, due in large measure to the polical impact of the truck lobby. 

http://www.ocianews.com/reports/freight.pdf

"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."

 

[rjemery]

The only way to know whether the gussets were inadequate in design is to analyze the design.  A damaged gusset plate does not prove anything about its design.  So how can they throw out the suggestion of inadequate design without actually seeing the mathematics that point that way?  And if there is mathematics that points that way, why haven't they revealed that? ...

You want instant gratification.  By retrieving and visually inspecting the gusset plates, a lot about inadequate design can be demonstrated.  A plate, damaged or otherwise, will still reveal its original thickness, overall size, type of steel, number of holes for rivets, size of those holes/rivets, etc.

The mathematical proof comes from finite element analysis.  Once the overall design is plugged into an accurate computer model, then the stress on any member or part could be calculated.  They will in simulation place various loads and overloads on the virtual deck in an effort to determine where and how the structure can break.  That's going to take months, but it will be done, and it will show rather precisely and convincingly what went wrong.

Clearly the gusset plate in this type of bridge is a profoundly crucial part.  If one fails anywhere for any reason, down comes the entire structure.  That is not necessarily the case with other components.  Therefore, for those desiring quick answers like an impatient news media, politicos and yourself, gusset plates are a good place to start.

 

[Anonymous]

I am not demanding a quick answer.  I just want to know how, yesterday, they concluded that the gussets may be flawed in their design.  I would have thought they could not have made that suggestion without some FEA analysis.  They laid it on the table, not me.

[rjemery]

I am not demanding a quick answer.  I just want to know how, yesterday, they concluded that the gussets may be flawed in their design.  I would have thought they could not have made that suggestion without some FEA analysis.  They laid it on the table, not me.

It may well be that experienced NTSB investiagators eye-balled the gusset plates in the wreckage and felt subjectively they were inadequate.  In any event, part of the early investigation is to "verify" loads and stresses, ostensibly from the original engineering drawings.  Had those gusset plates been twice the size and thickness with bolts instead of rivets, those same investigators would have undoubtedly focused on some other part with which to start the probe.  Regardless of where they start, the media is going to jump on that initial focus and exaggerate its importance.

Read the NTSB press releases.  I don't see therein any "conclusion" about flawed gussets.  I think you are citing what the media reported (or mis-reported), not what the NTSB said.

[J. Edgar]

....J Edgar:

FDR put forth an effort to help our struggling economy during the 30's.  You might consider that it was a lot of help to a lot of needy citizens at the time.  Not just dollars and cents you seem to regret now.....

I lived through the Depression and times were less than rosy.  I'm sure glad we had some one guiding the ship trying to get out of the bad mess.  His efforts might even have helped some other than Liberals too.

  theres no dening FDR did good things..things needed during that time....i obvisiously did not live thru that time ..all i have to go on is what was taught in public schools during the 70's and what my mother and grandparents told me on a daily basis......again obvisiously their points of view ....which they instilled on me and ive carried on such as Flag Family and Hard work......is different then yours and i fully respect yours

 i would never detract anything from the hard times people went thru then...just as it wasnt my intention to soapbox in this forum 

[Modelcar]

....Case closed.

[Anonymous]

I am not demanding a quick answer.  I just want to know how, yesterday, they concluded that the gussets may be flawed in their design.  I would have thought they could not have made that suggestion without some FEA analysis.  They laid it on the table, not me.

Read the NTSB press releases.  I don't see therein any "conclusion" about flawed gussets.  I think you are citing what the media reported (or mis-reported), not what the NTSB said.

No, I am citing what the NTSB said, but let me clarify what I am saying.  It is true that the NTSB did not conclude that the plates were the cause, but I did not say they did.  What I said was:  

"I just want to know how, yesterday [8/8/07], they concluded that the gussets may be flawed in their design." 

If they have enough evidence to publicly speculate about a probability on 8/8/07, I would like to know what the evidence is.  Instead, the next day (8/9/07) they tell me something to the effect that they never said what they said about a design flaw the previous day.

Here is a quote from the story as it broke on 8/8/07:

MINNEAPOLIS, Aug. 8 - Investigators have found what may be a design flaw in the bridge that collapsed here a week ago, in the steel parts that connect girders, raising safety concerns for other bridges around the country, federal officials said on Wednesday.

The Federal Highway Administration swiftly responded by urging all states to take extra care with how much weight they place on bridges of any design when sending construction crews to work on them. Crews were doing work on the deck of the Interstate 35W bridge here when it gave way, hurling rush-hour traffic into the Mississippi River and killing at least five people.

The National Transportation Safety Board's investigation is months from completion, and officials in Washington said they were still working to confirm the design flaw in the so-called gusset plates and what, if any, role they had in the collapse.

Still, in making public their suspicion about a flaw, the investigators were signaling they considered it a potentially crucial discovery and also a safety concern for other bridges. Gusset plates are used in the construction of many bridges, not just those with a similar design to the one here.

 

Here is the link to the whole piece:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/09/us/09bridge.html?_r=1&em&ex=1186804800&en=1300c73d49a7256f&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin

 

I have no complaint about how the officials are conducting the investigation.  I expect them to look at both the computer models and finite element analysis, as well as each and every physical component of the collapsed bridge, and reconcile the models with the parts.  Also, I have no objection as to where they start their investigation, or the sequence once underway.  I would expect them to start in an area where the immediate evidence is the most compelling.  I realize that there may be damage in the actual parts that constitutes evidence of the cause of the collapse. 

Everybody is anxious to learn the cause.  While I may speculate, I realize that it would be completely unreasonable for me to come to a conclusion because I am not qualified, and I don't have all of the evidence.  But bystanders and outsiders are free to speculate and guess.  However, the ones who cannot speculate and guess are the investigating officials.  For them, not only would speculation be pointless, it also might cloud their objectivity.

So the larger issue to me is why the NSTB would even offer the suggestion publicly while their investigation is still under way.  I agree that the media did spread the information, but they did not create it.  The public speculation about a design flaw came from the investigating authorities.

I suspect the loading on the bridge was small potatoes compared to the burden being borne by the designers, inspectors, and certifiers of that bridge since its collapse.  I believe that this pressure is causing irrational behavior within the responsible agencies as they twist and squirm under the limelight of the public demand to learn where the responsibility lies. 

That limelight first focused on inspection, so it seems to me that they offered an excuse that inspection was difficult or impossible to execute.  Not only was that an astoundingly premature admission, considering that the investigation is still under way, but it also actually worsens the culpability surrounding a supposed lack of proper inspection.  To claim that inspection was too hard to do seems particularly ironic when you consider that they were already hotly denying the popular charge that they could not properly inspect because of a lack of resources.  They apparently realized how that charge would increase their burden of blame rather than alleviate it.  But they seemed to have missed that point when they came out and said that they could not properly inspect the bridge because certain details were inaccessible.

I speculate that when they realized the implications of their claim of inspection difficulty, they wheeled out the potential design flaw to shift the focus.  If a design flaw was the reason, a lack of inspection was not.  Then by the very next day, they realized that their premature offering of a potential design flaw without any substantiation was extremely ill-advised, so they backpedaled and deflected by accusing us of running too far with their announcement on 8/8/9.  I have not seen any news whatsoever that appears to exaggerate their announcement of a potential design flaw. 

[Anonymous]

Well, we'd have to adjust the truck taxes down.  Trucks pay more than their fair share.  The problem is that so much fuel tax revenue is diverted to pork boondoggles (aka the Big Dig), mass transit (here's an idea - LETS MAKE TRANSIT USERS PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE!), neighborhood sewer projects, that sort of thing.  How about we just use fuel tax revenues for our intercity roads, and let other taxes pay for that other stuff?

This is just impossible for me to believe.  

A fully loaded truck weighs more than 20 times more than a fully loaded automobile.  Automobiles subsize the roads. That is a long known but seldom discussed fact, due in large measure to the polical impact of the truck lobby. 

http://www.ocianews.com/reports/freight.pdf

 

"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."

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..........

Fact - most road construction budgets are focussed on new alignments, adding lanes, that sort of thing.  Aka, it's related to pure traffic volumes, not a plethora of heavy haul vehicles.  The maintenance budgets are mostly spent on wear and tear from such traffic volumes, combine that with natural aging of roadway surfaces, the winter/summer dynamic............

Here's the thing - when you talk about moving freight from trucks to rail, have you really considered whether or not that freight is actually optimized for rail movement?  Do you concede that much of the trucking ton/miles is in those "last mile" corridors, aka delivery to the retail level, something railroads aren't set up to do? 

Or try this for size - when you allege that "trucks don't pay their fair share" for roadway budgets, don't you realize that with branchline abandonments much of that freight used to move by rail?  Should we make the railroads "pay their fair share" of roadway budgets since they have deliberately transfered that freight from rail to truck?

I know a lot of county commissioners that would like to tax BNSF and UP for the increase in road maintenance budgets due to either branchline abandonmetns and/or a loss of decent rail service on the remaining branchline trackage!

There is no evidence to suggest that forcing more freight from truck to rail would have somehow prevented the I-35W bridge collapse.  To infer such a thing is irresponsible.

[joe-daddy]

http://www.ocianews.com/reports/freight.pdf

 

"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."

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..........

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 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[spokyone]

Oh Joe. You did not have a basis for your quote. The PDF says. "studies" but did not name them. So FM's statement carries the same weight as yours, at least in my opinion.

[Poppa_Zit]

I'll bow out of this discussion, the logic it seems to me is grossly illogical and biased.

Joe

Welcome to the club, Joe.

 

[choochoobuff]

In reference to some of the other posts, 60 minutes and the NY Times are not the most reliable sources around.  Also, railways are a huge part of the American economy.  The taxpayer (us) benefit greatly from the convenience of the rail industry.  Some people are of the misapprehension that if the govt doesn't spend our tax dollars here we will somehow get them back.  If they don't spend them on things that provide a return (business) it will go to things that never have a return (social programs).  You have to spend money to make money, that includes Uncle Sam.

[Anonymous]

One of the most infamous railroad bridge accidents was the March 14, 1887 collapse of the Bussey Bridge in Roslindale, Massachusetts as a Boston & Providence Railroad passenger train was passing over it.  This collapse was attributed to bad design by an unqualified builder in addition to ongoing inspections by an unqualified inspector.  It is claimed that the large number of spectators attracted to the wreck helped promote the growth of Roslindale.

Here is the full story:

http://www.jphs.org/transportation/bussey-bridge-train-disaster.html

Here is some more information about the site today:

http://ksgaccman.harvard.edu/hotc/DisplayPlace.asp?id=11666

Another bridge-related calamity was the dreadful Chatsworth Wreck of midnight August 10-11, 1887 on the TP&W.  At least 78 people were killed in a derailment caused by a fire weakened wood culvert.

Here is the story:

http://msnusers.com/ChatsworthIllinoisMemories/thegreatchatsworthtrainwreck.msnw

As with the Wreck of No. 97, and the Casey Jones wreck, someone also wrote a song about the Chatsworth wreck:

 

 

The Chatsworth Wreck


From city, town and hamlet there came a merry throng

To view the great Niagara, with joy they sped along.


The maiden and her lover, the husband and the wife,

The merry prattling children so full of joyous life.


With hand upon the lever and eye upon the track

The engineer is standing while the shades of night grow black


To see the smouldering timbers that lay along the ridge,

Oh God, in pity save them! It is the railway bridge.


A mighty crash of timbers, a sound of hissing steam;

The groans and cries of anguish, a woman's stifled scream.


The dead and dying mingled with the broken beams and bars;

An awful human carnage, a dreadful wreck of cars.

AlI honor to the brave ones who flame and fire fought

AII through that night of horror, a glory dearly bought


Over land and o'er the water this thrilling message crossed

The bridge was burned at Chatsworth, a hundred lives were lost


But oh, how much of sorrow, and oh, how much of pain

Awaited those who journeyed on that fatal railway train.

 *************************

[Anonymous]

http://www.ocianews.com/reports/freight.pdf

 

"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."

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..........

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 

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.....

http://www.atri-online.org/research/results/economicanalysis/hfa_exec_summary_final.pdf

....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:

1. Costs of road maintenance have increased with the increase in vehicle numbers.  It is a function of volume, not weight per vehicle.
2. 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.
3. More and more highway funds are being diverted to non highway use over this same time period.

The recommendations:

1. Increase the fuel tax by 20 cents per gallon, then allow automatic increases in the fuel tax pegged to inflation.
2. Stop diverting highway funds to things like mass transit - make those entities pay their own way.  Speaking of transit vehicles...
3. 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.

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."

http://www.erstarnews.com/2007/April/17truck.html

 

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.