I am skeptical of all analyses purporting to quantify road deterioration inflicted by vehicle types. This is because I cannot imagine who would develop such an analysis without having an agenda that benefited from the outcome of the analysis. If a private business owned the roads, I could see them having an interest in knowing the truth about the wear and tear caused by their vehicles. Knowing the facts would be part of their business. But otherwise, there would be inherent motivation to exaggerate the results, downplay them, or shift the blame from one vehicle user to another.
The problem with any analysis of road damage by vehicle type is so complex that anyone can convincingly challenge it and come up with a different result. On one hand, engineering facts and numbers don’t lie, but on the other hand, they can be made into an effective smokescreen.
Certainly roads wear out with use and weather. And they wear out faster as vehicle weights increase. Beyond that, I don’t trust any conclusions. You can account for the strength of the asphalt, concrete, and rebar, and the axle weight of the truck. But this only opens the door to the analysis. You have to go further and consider the strength of the base and the subgrade. You have to consider the effects of the frost lifting the subgrade. As the frost forms, it migrates moisture toward the surface of the subgrade, and the moisture freezes near the surface. Then when the frost melts in the spring, the subgrade’s weight-bearing capacity becomes diminished from the over-saturation of water.
Asphalt and concrete road surfaces develop cracks. Concrete paving has joints. The joints and cracks act like rail joints on a railroad. That is, the joints and cracks in paving are weaker than the rest of the slab. So the axle weight of a vehicle places a higher loading on the road base at the cracks and joints, just like railroad wheels place a higher loading on the ties at rail joints. The higher loading of the ties at rail joints beat the joints down so their support allows the rail to fall below the proper track surface when under load. The same effect happens with highway pavement and concrete slabs.
The more the load bearing ability is beat down at the joints of railroads or highways, the greater the dynamic load at these joints. When a wheel enters a low or soft joint, it is pulled downward from its normal line of travel by gravity. Then when the wheel is raised upward against gravity as it comes out of the low spot, it places an enhanced loading on the rail or slab. On a railroad track, this effect shows up as battered, mushroomed, and spalled railheads on each side of a joint.
Two factors come into play here:
1) As concrete joints and asphalt cracks lose their load bearing ability from this enhanced impact loading, the rate of continued loss will accelerate.
2) The faster the highway vehicle travels, the greater the impact loading of the concrete joints and asphalt cracks.
So this leads to two very interesting conclusions. One is that a vehicle of any given weight will do more damage to a road that already has slab joint deterioration than it will do to a new road that has no slab joint deterioration.
The second conclusion is this: Suppose the road authorities could perfectly account for truck wear and tear to a highway, and that they had the tax rate perfectly set for the truck to pay its fair share of the wear and tear. If that were the case, and if the truck exceeded the speed limit, it would be causing more wear and tear than what it is paying for.
I was strickly an observer of a repaving and widening project on I-85 south of Atlanta.
0. First almost all bridges over the interstate were raised an average of 24 - 28 ".
1. The right lane and middle lane (where it was 3 lanes) were really torn up and cracked concrete. Lewt lane was smooth as trucks not allowed in left of 3 lanes or more.
2. All holes in concrete previously were patched repeately but cracks quickly came back.
3. Second Various lanes were patched and any under pavement repair completed.
4. For repair of the concrete a 10 inch layer of asphalt was added over the concrete and patches. I suspect this was done to use the super cooled physical properties of asphalt that I have note are done in current airport pavement projects.
5. Then new re bar (#8?) was added long ways and cross wise.
6. Finally a 10" layer of concrete (5000# ?) was poured to form a new pavement.
7. Note: all but one bridge was re built as well.
Project took 2-1/2 years to complete. Appeaars that this was an attempt to build roads to avoid truck damage.
edbenton Here in the US we might use 5% asphalt in blacktop. Europe IIRC from other Forums it is 15% hpolds up a hell of alot better. Also we have a 6 inch thick layer of roadbead. There it is 30 inches which one will last longer. Remember the FHWSA writes the construction standards.
Here in the US we might use 5% asphalt in blacktop. Europe IIRC from other Forums it is 15% hpolds up a hell of alot better. Also we have a 6 inch thick layer of roadbead. There it is 30 inches which one will last longer. Remember the FHWSA writes the construction standards.
Ed,
Who would be paying for the difference between the current road construction standards and the improved standards? While the "government" does build and own most of the roads in the US (government meaning local, state and federal), they collect the money to do so from a combination of taxes and fees. How these taxes and fees are allocated has been a source of a lot of discussion.
One of the chief complaints by the freight RR's is that the competition has not been paying their fair share of costs.
- Erik
So now we are reduced to dismissing a variety of engineering studies that consistently show very heavy damage to our highways (our highways, not the trucking industry's private network) by trucks? Are we to believe they are all wrong because they "don't pass the sniff test" or biased because of some convoluted reasoning about the government?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm So now we are reduced to dismissing a variety of engineering studies that consistently show very heavy damage to our highways (our highways, not the trucking industry's private network) by trucks? Are we to believe they are all wrong because they "don't pass the sniff test" or biased because of some convoluted reasoning about the government?
Then again we need the trucks because we as a society keep buying and throwing away crap. The trucking industry isn't just running trucks for the heck of it....
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
I don’t think there is any question that heavy trucks cause more wear and tear to highways than lighter vehicles. Theoretically, they are charged accordingly. I don’t know if their charges match the wear and tear they cause or not. But a lot of people believe they don’t. If the studies are accurate, what would be the reason for trucks not being charged their fair share by the taxing authority?
Do all the studies that show vehicle wear and tear to highways come to the same conclusion? What is your conclusion about whether or not trucks pay their fair share? I don’t have one. I would have to do my own study before I could reach a conclusion. But when you consider the amount of engineering analysis that would be needed, plus the cost accounting of how vehicles pay for roads, plus all the different bias motivations that would come into play depending on who paid for the study; I think an objective and true result would be impossible.
I only brought up this issue as a continuation of that other thread. Some people say it has nothing to do with passenger rail. It might not in truth, but a lot of people want to justify subsidies for passenger rail by claiming that we subsidize highways. When you point out that highways are mostly paid for by the users, the rail proponents claim that there are hidden highway costs that require a government subsidy. Often the hidden cost they cite is the extra damage done by trucks beyond what the trucks pay for road use. That comes up all the time with public rail discussions. It came up in the other thread. So I brought it up here as a specific question. I figured that in a few pages here, we could put the question to bed once and for all.
I am merely saying that the studies I linked seem to accept the notion that the damage from trucks is exponentially greater than autos. I noticed that a Wisconsin study found severe deterioration on roads even with the segments linked by the recommended REBAR dowels to reduce flex. Look at what blue streak 1 observed south of Atlanta on I 85 rebuilding.
"The right lane and middle lane (where it was 3 lanes) were really torn up and cracked concrete. Left lane was smooth as trucks [were] not allowed in left of 3 lanes or more."
Pretty clearly, though trucks are necessary for commerce, lighter loads and/or the payment of much higher fees to allow for the damage they cause to our highways need to be considered. You, Bucyrus, often complain about the government providing services not covered by user fees. It does appear, however, that all of us who drive cars and pay taxes are heavily subsidizing the trucking industry.
schlimm I am merely saying that the studies I linked seem to accept the notion that the damage from trucks is exponentially greater than autos. ... It does appear, however, that all of us who drive cars and pay taxes are heavily subsidizing the trucking industry.
I am merely saying that the studies I linked seem to accept the notion that the damage from trucks is exponentially greater than autos.
... It does appear, however, that all of us who drive cars and pay taxes are heavily subsidizing the trucking industry.
I agree that studies show trucks do more damage to roads than cars or other lighter vehicles, and I have no problem believing that. And the damage might go up exponentially with the weight of the vehicle as you say.
But where is the evidence that trucks are not paying for all of the damage they do, but instead are having part of that damage being paid for by a subsidy from car drivers?
I do not know precisely how much truckers actually pay into the highways funds per truck. Even if the exponential damage factor were only 500X that of a car (less than 10& of the commonly mentioned amount) don't you think it seems unlikely that one truck would pay 500X what you or I do [if we actually knew how much we pay, that is]? I suppose that figure, or the method of calculating it is available somewhere.
schlimm I do not know precisely how much truckers actually pay into the highways funds per truck. Even if the exponential damage factor were only 500X that of a car (less than 10& of the commonly mentioned amount) don't you think it seems unlikely that one truck would pay 500X what you or I do [if we actually knew how much we pay, that is]? I suppose that figure, or the method of calculating it is available somewhere.
I really don’t know what the truth is about that. But it has to be an extraordinarily complex calculation. If it were accurately calculated, one should be able to readily ascertain whether trucks pay for their share of the road wear and tear. But the fact that the question is endlessly debated suggests to me that an accurate calculation has not been made. Or if it has been made, then not everybody believes it is accurate.
But here is something else to consider: Suppose trucks do not pay the full cost of the road damage they cause. Whose fault is that? The taxing authority calls the shots. For that matter, I wonder what the taxing authority would say to the question of whether trucks pay their share of the road damage. If anybody could answer the question, the taxing authority ought to be able to.
Boy don't look at your email on a hot subject and see how your box fills up!!! (I've been out of range of easy email access).
A comment. This last winter was really ugly in Tennessee and Arkansas along I-40. about 5-8 years ago both Tn & Ar did some major rebuild on I 40 from Nashville thru to Little Rock. The improvement was especially noticeable for those of us who drive big trucks.
As I noted above this last winter was pretty bad along this route with,on several occasions I 40 being closed due to icy and snow covered roadway that these 2 "sunbelt" states were junable to keep plowed and deiced. Now that spring has"arrived" onecan see what one winters worth can do. In both states even newly repaved(last summer) roadway is full of potholes.
Personal opinion. What has happened along this stretch of I 40 shows just how much damage one winter can do to a roadway with very heavy traffic. Also try to remember that Memphis is a major hub for intermodal for 5 of this countries largest railroads(UP, BNSF, CSX, NS, CN) The amount of road traffic these railroads generate is pretty major close to 20% of the total(at a guess)
I could see how much damage one winter could do. Arkansas went in one winter(personal opinion) from the most improved(compared to the 90's) to back were they started from. Tennessee by way of contrast went from good to needs work.
Most of the damage (I think) was from plows picking pieces of loosened pavement.
My 2 cents worth
thx ign
I think trucks pay more than their share of taxes. I know as I pay them. Government does not spend all the road tax on roads and does not build roads to handle the weight that they carry. Trucks pay tax on how much fuel they use for the miles run in that state. There are other taxes too. Federal tax of I think $500 a year per truck. My tags another tax are $1600 a year. Taxes on new tires and trucks and trailers. Don't forget I pay a fee to tag the trailer too. How about the tolls on toll roads? Double tax there.
As a trucker I would like weight limits lowered not raised. Also enforcement has to go with that. How many times do you see weigh stations closed? In Illinois if you are over weight you have to make it right after you pay the fine. If you are over 80000 some of it has to come off.
It has been stated time and time again by governments, highway departments, as[halt and concrete groups, and others that the heavier the vehicle the more damage, wear and tear, on roadway it does in exponential proportions. I have never seen information that says truck or buses road use taxes has ever kept up with that rate. If it were so, then niether general funds nor special bondings would be needed to build and maintain highways....taxing or licensing fees don't cover the cost nor does the gasoline tax...so higher weight vehicles of any kind probably don't approach the cost of damage they produce.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Your forgetting this also the amount of Fuel taxes that the Federal andState Guberments have diverevted to the General funds from the Highway Trust Funds. The .15 cents on Diesel for Highways well 4 cents of that thanks to clinton is used in the General Fund for General Rdvenues to keep the amount of the Federal Deficet down. The States put a Sales tax on Fuel in addition to the amount fuel taxes they have on it to get the most in Revenue they can since all staes are on IFTA so even if you do not buy fuel in that state.
The normal trucker that runs 120K miles a year and gets 6 MPG with the normal fuel tax rate for all states that avarages close to 55 cents a gallon now. We burn 20K gallons of fuel our Normal fuel tax bill is 11 grand a year they normal tax bill for a OTR truck is close to 55 Grand a year for all kind of taxes.
Most of those taxes you are citing are paid by all nongovernmental vehicle owners, just in smaller amounts, as it should be.
However I agree with you about the spending priorities. If transportation trust fund money was not spent on walking trails, museums, million dollar bus stops, etc. there would be a lot more money available for road and bridge construction and repair.
Another problem is the way the money is distributed. I have seen several instances of a $50,000 traffic signal being installed at a low volume intersection, or a perfectly good local road being torn up and repaved because it was nearing the end of the fiscal year, there was road money left in the budget, and if it is not used it must be returned. If it is returned, the next year's allocation will be reduced by that amount.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
edbenton Your forgetting this also the amount of Fuel taxes that the Federal andState Guberments have diverevted to the General funds from the Highway Trust Funds. The .15 cents on Diesel for Highways well 4 cents of that thanks to clinton is used in the General Fund for General Rdvenues to keep the amount of the Federal Deficet down.
Your forgetting this also the amount of Fuel taxes that the Federal andState Guberments have diverevted to the General funds from the Highway Trust Funds. The .15 cents on Diesel for Highways well 4 cents of that thanks to clinton is used in the General Fund for General Rdvenues to keep the amount of the Federal Deficet down.
Not true. I believe I showed in a post some time back, that the diversion to General Fund was a temporary practice which ended long ago , but ed seems to want to keep saying it is true now.
From the Wiki, the details:
Politicians later seized on fuel taxes as an area where taxes could be collected for deficit reduction. On November 5, 1990, in an effort to reduce the deficit, President George H. W. Bush approved the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, which increased the gas tax another five cents - half going to the Highway Fund and half going to deficit reduction. President Clinton increased the gas tax by 4.3 cents when he signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 on August 10, 1993. The total tax to 18.4 cents per gallon. However, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 redirected the 4.3 cent hike to the HTF.
I think it is safe to say that, given the cattywampus* way highway monies get collected and distributed, no one can ever calculate, with 100% accuracy, whether any particular driver or group of drivers pay the full cost of their use of the roads. No allocation system is perfect.
Can we agree, then, that everybody either subsidizes or is subsidized, to some degree?
And, wasn't the point that started these threads the old and oft-discussed issue -- that every form of infrastructure is subsidized in some form or another, so why shouldn't passenger rail be also?
* I had to look up the spelling of that one, but there it is!
We live, at least for the moment, in a society. That is, and organized group of people who are functioning together for the common good.
Every man for himself is called Anarchy.
Dragoman Can we agree, then, that everybody either subsidizes or is subsidized, to some degree? And, wasn't the point that started these threads the old and oft-discussed issue -- that every form of infrastructure is subsidized in some form or another, so why shouldn't passenger rail be also?
Yes that was the point of wondering if trucks pay their fair share of road wear. If they do not, then it looks like they are being subsidized. And yes it is true that the point of looking for subsidies under every rock is to build a case that, since subsidies are everywhere, then it justifies subsidizing passenger rail.
HOWEVER: Subsidies are not as common as passenger rail advocates want us to believe. They exaggerate the number of subsidies in order to bolster their case for susbsidizing passenger rail.
henry6 ....taxing or licensing fees don't cover the cost nor does the gasoline tax...so higher weight vehicles of any kind probably don't approach the cost of damage they produce.
....taxing or licensing fees don't cover the cost nor does the gasoline tax...so higher weight vehicles of any kind probably don't approach the cost of damage they produce.
Just because taxes and license fees do not cover the cost of roads, it does not necessarily follow that trucks do not pay their fair share of road cost. It may just as well be that automobiles do not pay their fair share of the cost.
But in any case, the solution is simple. The government just needs to set the taxes and fees to cover the cost. Why don't they do that?
Bucyrus The government just needs to set the taxes and fees to cover the cost. Why don't they do that?
The government just needs to set the taxes and fees to cover the cost. Why don't they do that?
Because "the government" wants to get re-elected. Our society has grown accustomed to "free roads" (outside of costs for licenses and fuel taxes) and any change to that will be frowned upon at the ballot box.
I would like to offer the experience of the Canadian Province of Saskatchewan, Now admittedly in the north we also have the freeze/thaw effect that those in the southern states don't have, but that is probably not particularly material.
Anyway, over the last couple of decades the grain gathering network has evolved from 5 ton grain trucks running a short distance to a country elevator to heavy B-train trucks hauling 60-100 miles over the provincial highways to a large terminal elevator. Almost immediately the highways started to disintegrate and some have become either gravel roads over extensive distances or tanktrap-riddled pieces of asphalt. If the trucks pay their way the provincial treasury should be overflowing with funds to rebuild the road system. Needless to say that is not the case!
Faced with unpleasant facts, the province came to a remarkably sane conclusion, that it was more cost effective to help establish short lines to operate CN and CP's unwanted branches. By encouraging more of the grain to travel by rail the damage to the roads would be significantly reduced. Naturally it came too late for most regions.
John
John: Another good example of the damage. Using Ed Benton's own figures for an OTR truck for one year (120,000 mile: 20,000 gallons @ 16.4 cents per gallon), the federal fuel tax $3680. I doubt if that is even close to the damage done. In any case, that truck pays no more per gallon in tax, nor in total tax a penny more than 6 cars driving 20,000 miles each in a year. Is someone going to contend that those 6 cars do as much damage as the single truck? My point is not that passenger rail should therefore get a subsidy, too, but we've been subsidizing truck operations for years. They should pay more for the damage, not the rest of us. Or maybe the answer is to do what Saskatchewan did to get more heavy trucks off the roads.
Comment does one person in a car do as much damage as 2?
Federal fuel taxes: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/hs00/fe101a.htm . I will try to edit this later to provide the link.
If I am reading the table correctly $.184 for gasoline and $.24 for diesel.
As to if trucks pay their fair share? Try to remember that in our highway & oil dependent economy who would pay for these higher taxes.
I will make this comment(as I said before), If you are going to build a way for people and thing to get from point A to point B , simple sense is you build the cheapest possible means. Of couse who ever saidpolitics was simple. Too many politicians have no concept of the costs of what they want. It is all easy to build a two lane road but try to then have the population of a large city(say 400000 people) use that road to get from home to work every day.
Then what is cheaper? A 8 lane freeway or a double track rail operation? And if you build a rail operation how do you get people interested and riding. SF Bay Area had an interesting way if unintentional. Run the trains down the middle of the freeway( in Contr Costa county) and go 80mph. While the speed limit for cars was 55mph(the 1970's)
Now there is so much traffic with the attendent jams that there is a lot less resistance to rail. Also most places have a very goodlocal bus network. In addition any time you build rail automobile parking lots are a must.
Yes I drive a truck for a living(OTR). I also see the neccessaty for a rebuilding of rail. And using tax dollars to do so.
Looking at Trains magazines article on US high speed rail I can agree that California , will succeed with high speed rail where Florida will have problems. Florida needs to have at least the core of rail experiance to avoid having a boondogle. They should think about doing some regional operations like say Homestead north toFort Pierce, or Fort Myers Tampa, Orlando or others.
rgds IGN
Yes, trucks do enormous damage to our roads...is it 10 times or 22 times or 500 times what a car does? It doesn't matter... Do trucks pay their fair share? As always..fairness is in the eye of the beholder... The key here is that the setup that we have is what we (living in a democracy) want.. No question, trucking is heavily subsized... and that subsidization translates into savings for shippers..which in a nutshell means savings to YOU.... thus we all feed at the public trough to some extent either directly or indirectly...
Well, if we assume that trucks are not paying their fair share of road wear, then that means that car divers are subsidizing trucking by paying more than their share of road wear. So if we were to change this so trucks paid their fair share, it would reduce the license fees for car drivers and raise them for trucks. Then the truckers would pass the extra cost on to the consumers in the form of higher priced products that move by truck. So it would be a wash for car driver cost as far as that goes.
However, while most people consume products that move by truck, not everybody drives. So, with the current vehicle fees, the car drivers are subsidizing the non-car-drivers by paying the truck damage for the products hauled by truck to the non-car-drivers.
So, if we change the system so the truckers pay their fair share of the road wear, then car drivers will benefit at least a little because they will no longer be subsidizing the non-car-drivers.
This thread is getting downright silly.
What if, and I know this is crazy talk, neither Cars nor trucks are paying a fair share of the costs?
I'd love to see a transportation budget that proposed fees(taxes) on vehicles that would actually cover the needs of the roadways. Years of neglect not withstanding, I'd accept a theoretical "If all roads were in good shape now" proposal.
YoHo1975 What if, and I know this is crazy talk, neither Cars nor trucks are paying a fair share of the costs? I'd love to see a transportation budget that proposed fees(taxes) on vehicles that would actually cover the needs of the roadways. Years of neglect not withstanding, I'd accept a theoretical "If all roads were in good shape now" proposal.
Be Careful what you wish for..In some of the states up here in the Northeast there have occasionally been proposals for replacing the State Gasoline tax with a "per mile" user tax that would use a "Speed Pass"(automated toll collection system) transponder on every motor vehicle.
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
We all subsize truckers and shippers indirectly. It has nothing to do with whether you drive or not. If you eat then you most likely bought your food in a store...and that store got its food from producers who paid a subsidized trucker rate to get it to you. So if you do nothing but live in an apartment and walk to the store for groceries...you're still getting the benefit of a subsidized trucking industry. I suppose the basic setup could be changed so that trucking carriers pay the full cost of the infrastructure they use...carriers would then pass that cost on to shippers..and those of us who can afford it will still be able to buy a carton of eggs or a roll of toilet paper. Switching more to rail won't change much in that regard as the rails too are subsized.. We're all subsized to the hilt really.. and we all benefit enormously and almost freely from the hard work of others.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.