A bill in Congress proposes to increase the maximum weight of trailers from 80,000 pounds to 97,000. Possibly such trailers could be longer than 53 ft, which I guess would be ‘60. And ‘60 trailers would affect railroads too since they would need new intermodal spine-cars to accommodate the longer trailers. IIRC, the longest spine cars currently in use are ‘57. Not to mention if this new proposal is adopted domestic stack containers could be beyond 53' too.Of course there’s opposition to this proposal by some members of Congress, so who knows how far this legislation will go since it would have to go through the Senate too.
http://articles.philly.com/2011-05-15/business/29545977_1_bigger-trucks-heavier-trucks-monster-trucks
May 15, 2011|By Paul Nussbaum, Inquirer Staff Writer
A battle is brewing in Congress over allowing heavier and longer trucks on U.S. interstate highways, with some lawmakers from New Jersey and Pennsylvania on opposite sides of the debate.
As Congress inches toward a vote on a new transportation-funding law this year, both supporters and opponents of bigger trucks are lobbying to make their position part of the final bill.
The proposals for bigger trucks are supported by the American Trucking Associations and some industry and shipping groups, and they are opposed by the railroad industry, the American Automobile Association, and the Teamsters union.
Currently, federal law bans fully loaded trucks heavier than 80,000 pounds and longer than 53 feet from most interstate highways.
The American Trucking Associations is seeking to permit states to increase that maximum weight to 97,000 pounds. The proposal would require the heavier trucks to have six axles, up from the current five, to spread the weight over more wheels.
The industry also wants the federal government to allow states to permit longer trucks, with as many as three trailers hitched together. Such combinations are permitted in some Western states and on some turnpikes in the Midwest and East, but Congress in 1991 banned further expansion of such longer-combination vehicles as 76-foot "Rocky Mountain doubles," 96-foot "Turnpike doubles," and 84-foot "triples."
Opponents of the bigger trucks contend that the vehicles would endanger motorists, increase damage to roads and bridges, and increase costs to taxpayers for additional highway repairs.
Supporters say the bigger trucks would reduce the total number of trucks on the roads, making travel safer, and would shift heavy trucks to interstate highways from state and local highways, where the federal ban does not apply. They say the trucks would not increase highway damage because heavier loads would be dispersed over more wheels, and they say the trucks could be routed away from bridges unable to bear the heavier loads.
The supporters of the bigger trucks include Rep. Bill Shuster (R., Pa.), who is a cosponsor of a bill (HR763) introduced in February by Rep. Michael Michaud (D., Maine) to permit the heavier trucks.
On the other side, U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D., N.J.) this month introduced a bill (S876) to keep the current limits on truck weights and lengths on the 47,000-mile Interstate Highway System and to extend them to the 160,000-mile National Highway System, which includes state-funded U.S. highways. The cosponsors of a similar House bill (HR1574) include Reps. Robert Andrews (D., N.J.), Donald Payne (D., N.J.), and Tim Holden (D., Pa.).
Advocates on both sides insist their proposal would make highways safer.
"When you raise the weight limit or increase the size of the truck, you reduce the number of loads necessary to deliver the freight," said Darrin Roth, director of highway operations for the American Trucking Associations. "That reduces the number of miles traveled, which means fewer accidents, fewer emissions, and lower costs for freight."
Michaud, the prime sponsor of the House bill, said permitting bigger trucks on interstates would allow local industries to lower shipping costs and "it would promote safety . . . by making sure trucks aren't forced to take secondary roads through town centers in their travels up and down our state."
The Coalition Against Bigger Trucks, funded primarily by the railroad industry, cites studies by the U.S. Department of Transportation that found multiple-trailer trucks to be less safe to motorists and harder on highways and bridges.
"Multi-trailer combinations without compensating design features have inferior performance capabilities compared to single-trailer combinations and these differences, especially if frequently challenged in traffic-conflict situations, result in incrementally higher crash likelihoods," the Transportation Department found in a 2000 study.
AAA Mid-Atlantic, the motorists organization, opposes efforts to put heavier or longer trucks on interstates.
"Bigger trucks will mean bigger traffic problems and bigger risks," said Rick Remington, manager of public and government affairs at AAA Mid-Atlantic. "It's a simple matter of physics."
The Teamsters union, which represents truck drivers, also came out against bigger trucks. Union president Jim Hoffa said, "More than 600,000 of our 1.4 million members start their workday by turning a key in a vehicle. That gives Teamsters a real-life perspective on the dangers involved in increasing the size and weight of trucks."
Roth, of the trucking association, said opposition from railroads and truck drivers is driven by economics: Railroads would lose customers and truck drivers would lose jobs.
Both sides expect the debate to ultimately focus on deliberations in the House transportation committee, which is drafting a new, six-year transportation-funding bill. The chairman of the committee, Rep. John Mica (R., Fla.), has not taken a position on the big-truck issues, said aide Justin Harclerode.
The trucking industry certainly isn't unanimous on this issue. Bigger trucks mean bigger headaches as far as getting around tight areas, and that's assuming one can find drivers who are sufficiently qualifed to operate them. Long combination vehicles are used in some areas; however; here again there are numerous restrictions as to when, where, and how they may be operated. Personally I like the super B combination..they track and handle better than a conventional tractor trailer.. they are the perfect fit for what I do (steel)...would run only super B's if I could get away with it.
If they permit longer and heavier combo, multi trailer rigs will the be adding a additional brakeman and a two-way EOT requirement?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
And has the trucking industry indicated how they plan to reimburse the states for the cost of upgrading bridges and roadbeds to handle the greater weights? We car drivers don't need the upgrade, so why should these costs come out of general revenues?
There are benefits to the trucking industry every time weight and size limits are raised, and it is only fair that those who benefit should be solely responsible for the necessary costs. But just maybe the economics are only favorable when somebody else picks up the tab.....
John
cx500 And has the trucking industry indicated how they plan to reimburse the states for the cost of upgrading bridges and roadbeds to handle the greater weights? We car drivers don't need the upgrade, so why should these costs come out of general revenues? There are benefits to the trucking industry every time weight and size limits are raised, and it is only fair that those who benefit should be solely responsible for the necessary costs. But just maybe the economics are only favorable when somebody else picks up the tab..... John
Taxes paid by you and me and everyone else who benefits from a more efficient transportation industry...
Ulrich cx500: And has the trucking industry indicated how they plan to reimburse the states for the cost of upgrading bridges and roadbeds to handle the greater weights? We car drivers don't need the upgrade, so why should these costs come out of general revenues? There are benefits to the trucking industry every time weight and size limits are raised, and it is only fair that those who benefit should be solely responsible for the necessary costs. But just maybe the economics are only favorable when somebody else picks up the tab..... John Taxes paid by you and me and everyone else who benefits from a more efficient transportation industry...
cx500: And has the trucking industry indicated how they plan to reimburse the states for the cost of upgrading bridges and roadbeds to handle the greater weights? We car drivers don't need the upgrade, so why should these costs come out of general revenues? There are benefits to the trucking industry every time weight and size limits are raised, and it is only fair that those who benefit should be solely responsible for the necessary costs. But just maybe the economics are only favorable when somebody else picks up the tab..... John
Just as long as the trucking industry supports similar upgrades to the railroads out of general tax revenues. The railroads similarly pay fuel taxes, as well as a number of other taxes the truckers don't, such as property tax.
I won't disagree that there are advantages to a more efficient transportation industry, but the problem comes in how we measure "efficiency". I can take a load of junk to the dump in my pickup truck, making two or three trips to do it. I can also go out and buy a 5-ton truck to do it in one load. I have now saved 3 gallons of gas and a couple of hours, and it only cost $30,000. If somebody else is paying for the truck I will choose the "efficient" way and use the big one. If I have to use my own money to buy, or even rent, the truck I will most likely use my little one and make the extra trips. Less efficient, but more cost effective. (Exaggerated analogy, but in general that is why trucking has become so successful. Many of the costs related to their increasing efficiency are paid by somebody else.)
If they want to run longer, heavier equipment, let them pay for a special permit for each move. That way, there will be enough money in the till to repair at least some of the damage to pavement that wasn't designed for the heavier loads.
As far as multiple-trailer rigs, if they want to run trains, put them on rails.
Do we really want `efficiency' at the expense of squeezing independent owner-drivers out of the over-the-road freight business?
I will reserve my comments about sharing the road with rubber-tired trains as seen through the eyes of a four-wheeler pilot. The site's anti-profanity checker wouldn't like them.
Chuck
cx500 Ulrich: cx500: And has the trucking industry indicated how they plan to reimburse the states for the cost of upgrading bridges and roadbeds to handle the greater weights? We car drivers don't need the upgrade, so why should these costs come out of general revenues? There are benefits to the trucking industry every time weight and size limits are raised, and it is only fair that those who benefit should be solely responsible for the necessary costs. But just maybe the economics are only favorable when somebody else picks up the tab..... John Taxes paid by you and me and everyone else who benefits from a more efficient transportation industry... Just as long as the trucking industry supports similar upgrades to the railroads out of general tax revenues. The railroads similarly pay fuel taxes, as well as a number of other taxes the truckers don't, such as property tax. I won't disagree that there are advantages to a more efficient transportation industry, but the problem comes in how we measure "efficiency". I can take a load of junk to the dump in my pickup truck, making two or three trips to do it. I can also go out and buy a 5-ton truck to do it in one load. I have now saved 3 gallons of gas and a couple of hours, and it only cost $30,000. If somebody else is paying for the truck I will choose the "efficient" way and use the big one. If I have to use my own money to buy, or even rent, the truck I will most likely use my little one and make the extra trips. Less efficient, but more cost effective. (Exaggerated analogy, but in general that is why trucking has become so successful. Many of the costs related to their increasing efficiency are paid by somebody else.) John
Ulrich: cx500: And has the trucking industry indicated how they plan to reimburse the states for the cost of upgrading bridges and roadbeds to handle the greater weights? We car drivers don't need the upgrade, so why should these costs come out of general revenues? There are benefits to the trucking industry every time weight and size limits are raised, and it is only fair that those who benefit should be solely responsible for the necessary costs. But just maybe the economics are only favorable when somebody else picks up the tab..... John Taxes paid by you and me and everyone else who benefits from a more efficient transportation industry...
We're much in agreement. I run heavy equipment that can handle 95 thousand pound loads. I pay for the equipment... I pay the premium rate the driver gets for his expertise...I pay the additional road taxes that accrue...I pay for the additional maintenance... I charge my shipper less per ton to move his steel...he in turn charges GM less for the steel...and you pay less for your new car...The aforementioned is a vast oversimplification, I admit, but generally that's how it works.
John - that seems like a pretty good analogy to me ! Thanks for thinking it up and posting it.
Basic principle of economic efficiency - and it seems we're pretty close to agreement on this application of it: Costs incurred should be initially borne by those most directly responsible for them, and then let them pass those costs onto their customers - and a reasonably competitive economic system will next sort out what, who, and which is most efficient, and who bears what proportion of those costs.
In this context - and greatly simplified: the additional road construction, damage, and maintenance costs due to heavier trucks should be paid for by the truckers - they then have an incentive to minimize those costs, too, such as by using more tires or trucks, etc. The truckers can then charge their customers accordingly, or more likely, pass through the savings - there must be a benefit, otherwise why do it ? Those customers can then take that option into account when making their purchasing and transportation decisions. And yes - sooner or later, the effect of those costs does reach the ultimate consumer, usually like you and me - and that's OK, because everyone along the way has been subject to the competitive incentive to minimize those costs. But what shouldn't be done is to saddle the consumer directly with those costs in the form of higher general taxes to pay for road repairs, and skip over the intermediaries in the logistics chain of the trucker, the trucker's customer, and their customer, and so on. Then the taxpayer has the burden, and no none else has any incentive or exposure to those higher costs - to them, it's just a free benefit - and the taxpayer has no assurance of a benefit to be received, or even the 'check-and-balance' of competition to keep those costs in line.
Here in Pennsylvania, it took a long time for any kind of double to be allowed until recently - the long steep grades on many of our roads over the Allegheny Mountains, and even the high-class ones such as the Pennsylvania Turnpike - made such operations viewed as being inherently unsafe. Loss of air pressure, brake fade, and runaways on such steep grades are not confined to railroads ! The presence and occasional usage of emergency truck run-away safety ramps - as well as the (fortunately) rare runaway and crash into another vehicle or building, etc. - tells us that the challenge of steep grades has not been completely surmounted even with modern equipment. So even though there are compelling economic and political forces at work here, I'm not convinced that we can or should allow such rigs in this kind of territory.
- Paul North.
I can remember a time in the recent past when 57-foot trailers were tried, not sure if it was meant as an experiment or not. At any rate, it was found that they were too long for most surface street (non-freeway) situations; they couldn't get around a lot of intersections.
Being retired from trucking I now can see an ever wideing " swamp" of regulations and lawsuits ahead. ~~ Good luck to all involved in this swamp.
Retired and lovin' it . Cannonball
Y6bs evergreen in my mind
It is interesting to see who is against this idea this time: some truckers, some drivers, some union people, highway safety people, and some highway planners, besides the usual railroaders. Having driven Routes 80 and 81 last night through PA in the rain watching the trouble the double trailers were having, I have to be careful about bigger and heavier loads...and I think the powers that be are beginning see it the same way: there has to be a more coordinated, rationalized, and universal approach to transportation than just one mode. Even politicians are starting to get the message.
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.
henry6 It is interesting to see who is against this idea this time: some truckers, some drivers, some union people, highway safety people, and some highway planners, besides the usual railroaders. Having driven Routes 80 and 81 last night through PA in the rain watching the trouble the double trailers were having, I have to be careful about bigger and heavier loads...and I think the powers that be are beginning see it the same way: there has to be a more coordinated, rationalized, and universal approach to transportation than just one mode. Even politicians are starting to get the message.
Exactly..that pretty much sums it up. A more rationalized approach instead of various interest groups pushing their agendas would a great start...
One aspect of longer and heavier trucks and safety that seems to be overlooked, rather conveniently, is the issue of braking and stopping distance. As the weight increases, given the same speed, the distance it takes that rig to stop or slow down for other vehicles or traffic signals increases. If that enhances safety, I'd like to see how.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
drove a double once 200 miles ...never aagain. Same for a double as well. Real easy to jacknife a double if brakes slammed on. back trailer applys later much like a RR train.
schlimm One aspect of longer and heavier trucks and safety that seems to be overlooked, rather conveniently, is the issue of braking and stopping distance. As the weight increases, given the same speed, the distance it takes that rig to stop or slow down for other vehicles or traffic signals increases. If that enhances safety, I'd like to see how.
If you google the subject you'll find it's not really overlooked. Lots of studies to show stopping distance increase with weight and speed travelled...In fact safety is a legitimate concern that has been a key factor in maintaining the current 80K tractor trailer configuration. Larger vehicles have thus far seen limited use where their proponents have been able to show that these safety issues don't come into play given the lanes they run and restricted operating conditions.
The issue of braking ability was addressed last year, new stopping distance requirements are scheduled to go into effect in June, 60 to 0 distance is supposed to be reduced to 250 feet (I think). This is to be handled by larger drum brakes or new disc brakes.
If we go to 97,000lbs, there is supposed to be a 6th axle added to the trailer, but that opens up another can of worms. Anyone who has seen a spread-axle trailer negotiate a tight turn, knows that the tires take a beating. The only way in my eyes around this is by making the third axle liftable, to reduce wear.
Talked with some of our management about it some time back, they are not crazy about the idea, many unanswered questions, and money is an issue.
It is a pain now getting a 53-footer in many places in the eastern half of the country, 57-footers just will not work...
The above is the viewpoint from my semi, yours may vary......
Randy Vos
"Ever have one of those days where you couldn't hit the ground with your hat??" - Waylon Jennings
"May the Lord take a liking to you and blow you up, real good" - SCTV
rvos1979 schlimm: One aspect of longer and heavier trucks and safety that seems to be overlooked, rather conveniently, is the issue of braking and stopping distance. As the weight increases, given the same speed, the distance it takes that rig to stop or slow down for other vehicles or traffic signals increases. If that enhances safety, I'd like to see how. The issue of braking ability was addressed last year, new stopping distance requirements are scheduled to go into effect in June, 60 to 0 distance is supposed to be reduced to 250 feet (I think). This is to be handled by larger drum brakes or new disc brakes. If we go to 97,000lbs, there is supposed to be a 6th axle added to the trailer, but that opens up another can of worms. Anyone who has seen a spread-axle trailer negotiate a tight turn, knows that the tires take a beating. The only way in my eyes around this is by making the third axle liftable, to reduce wear. Talked with some of our management about it some time back, they are not crazy about the idea, many unanswered questions, and money is an issue. It is a pain now getting a 53-footer in many places in the eastern half of the country, 57-footers just will not work... The above is the viewpoint from my semi, yours may vary......
schlimm: One aspect of longer and heavier trucks and safety that seems to be overlooked, rather conveniently, is the issue of braking and stopping distance. As the weight increases, given the same speed, the distance it takes that rig to stop or slow down for other vehicles or traffic signals increases. If that enhances safety, I'd like to see how.
We run multi axles up here..I agree about the lift axles. It was tried here and rejected after it was found that they beat up the roads too much. Furthermore, lift axles area real pain when they don't lift like they're supposed to....that seemed to be a common complaint. Tridems and quads maybe... As I do mostly flatbed I'm sold on the B-train...they track really well, can haul weight...and you've got 16 wheels spread out under you...the B is a Canadian innovation by the way..
How are they going to turn the corner with longer trailers at most intersections without hitting poles or smashing automobiles? The 53' Trailers are not easy to negotiate at many intersections. Longer trailers would have to be restricted.
Andrew
Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer
Ulrich [snipped] As I do mostly flatbed I'm sold on the B-train...they track really well, can haul weight...and you've got 16 wheels spread out under you...the B is a Canadian innovation by the way..
Link to a diagram of a "B-train": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-Train
Link to an article on several different configurations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_train#B-double
But see this link to a 2005 document - "Heavy Truck Weight and Dimension Limits for Interprovincial Operations in Canada" (27 pages, approx. 988 KB in size) - see esp. pgs. 12 and 13 for info and a good diagram of a "B Train Double":
http://www.todaystrucking.com/images/MOUSizeamdWeight_2005.pdf
What's a "super B" as referred to in a post back on page 1 ?
A super B is simply the largest version of a B Train...they have three axles under the pivot connecting the two pup trailers (which are generally a 32 ft in the lead and a 28 ft behind it.) ...Smaller B Trains generally only have two axles under that central pivot point.
The design and construction of our highways has not improved and increased in capacity equal to all these "big rigs" being discussed here for use now and future use.
If we continue down this path of much heavier and more complicated heavy multi-trailered rigs, there will be decreases in overall safety to truckers and passenger auto traffic.
Why do we have to think in terms of ever increasing load capacities for over the highway means of freight hauling. Sounds like the reasoning is {for companies}, to squeeze out more profit in so doing. But at what cost, in money and lives.
If interstate ROW's had separate routes for these monsters only, then the safety of passenger carrying autos would not be an issue. So far, we don't seem to be building any of these kinds of routes, especially in any major effort.
Surly there has to be a limit how much weight, complicated connections, lengths we can mix with automobile traffic, without effecting the safety factor.
I have no adgenda against truck drivers. I try to stay my distance and be careful when mixing with them on interstates, and respect the size and weight they are manhandling, but if their size and weight continues to increase, our mixture on the open highways will be less safe.
Quentin
OK, thanks - all of the diagrams for the "B-Trains" in the Wikipedia links above have 3 axles under both trailers, and even the Canadian document above shows 3 axles under the rear of the lead trailer (though only the usual 2 under the rear of the following trailer). So I take it that a "B-Train" would be a conventional truck tractor with a single steering axle and tandem drive axles, followed by 2 trailers, each having only a tandem axle bogie; and the "Super B" would be the same, except that the lead trailer has 3 axles instead under it - correct ?
In the meantime, I also found this variation buried in the explanation of the "B-Double" in the Wikipedia article on "Road Train" that's linked above: [emphasis added; the rest is left in for more general interest and context, etc. - PDN]
"Around container ports in Australia there may also have what is known as a super B-double, these being a B-double that has a quad axle lead trailer capable of holding one 40-foot shipping container or two 20-foot shipping containers, and the rear trailer being capable of the same with either a tri or quad rear axle set. However, because of their large length and low accessibility into narrow streets, these vehicles are restricted in where they can go and are generally used for terminal-to-terminal work, i.e., wharf to container holding park or wharf-to-wharf. The rear axle on each trailer can also pivot slightly whilst turning to prevent scrubbing out the edges of the tyres due to the heavy loads placed on them."
Another question: When the first trailer in a "B-train" is backed up to a dock, is the dock fitted with an extra-long dock plate that spans the distance between the trailer door and the dock?
When reading the discussions of small clearances in some areas, I am reminded of the song "Give Me Forty Acres and I'll Turn This Rig Around."
And, the discussion of necessary driver skills reminded me of my experiences with different drivers. One of the docks from which I unloaded 53 footers had a narrow clearance between the apron of the dock plate and a dumpster (and, sometimes after the dumpster had been emptied I would have to move it back to give even that little bit of clearance). There were drivers who would have to make several tries, even with me directing him, before I was able set the dock plate in place--and, from time to time, after I had stopped to tell a driver (who was outside the gate to the yard, waiting for me to come to work) where he was to go he would have the trailer in place before I had time to get to my desk (to get my clipboard) and then to the dock.
Johnny
Just briefly, The Canadian 'B'-Train combination provides a higher level of stability in the connection between the fore trailer and its trailing unit. As Paul North described the connection is afixed to the fore trailer rear and is generally three axle carrying the weight of the rear of thr front trailer and two axles under the fifth wheel attachment. The use of a converter dolly provides two pivot locations.( at the 5th wheel and at the pintle connection).
Here in Kansas we are seeing the three pup combinations on the Kansas Turnpike. ( as well as the other allowed Trailer combinations) They are allowed on designated Interstate highways in Oklahoma (ie; Okla City to the K-tpk; at South Haven, Kansas and then on to the destination off the eastern terminus' of the K-Tpk.)
This conversation comes up, on an infrequent basis; at some point when the Trucking Industry wants,[" to test the waters for another increase in truck size."] or. thinks the Public and Politicians are 'comfortable' with the most recent previous upgrade in size.
Anecdotally, I was in the Trucking Industry when the change was made to 45' trailers, then, the next change to 48' trailers, and then to 53' trailers. At that change the drivers were 'thrown a biscuit' by the regulators.[ In that, they/regulators, took the over-all length restriction from unit length, and allowed the longer 'conventional'-style tractor to be used instead of the 'cab-over' style that was mandated with the previously controlled strict over-all length of the unit (cab and trailer combination) .
Having both driven and been administratively involved in the use of larger trailers as single units and in combinations, there practical considerations seem to be lost in the shuffle of changes to larger/longer size of not only trailer, but power units as well.
Companies, continually book loads on these large units to locations, ill-equipped to even get these units up to a dock to unload. The the streets, roads and bridges are never upgraded fast enough to be able to deal with these larger units ( problems with turning at intersections,etc. structures built out into the turning arcs of larger units. Drivers are physically limited by construction to have to make decisions to make a turn that is potentially dangerous to other driver and their own equipment.
Practically, these situations are never corrected in time for safe operations of larger equipment in the real environment. There are a number of posters here that could anecdotally, scare the stuff out of those who drive large truck and motorist who can tell stories of have the stuff scared out of themselves and others who came into danger in one situation or another involving large trucks.
The operation on inter-city highways is one environment that large trucks might operate safely, but inevitably these trucks will be found trying to make pick-ups or deliveries in urban environments never suited to the operations of these trucks.
Increased size is not something I would want to see at any level in current operational environments. And one of the very reasons I am retired!
This would present so many problems, to so many areas.
Not only to intersections and intermodal cars, but for anyone who has seen what 53' trailers can do to clog up warehouse complexes with facing docks originally built back when 40' trailers was standard....this will be a mess.
Many, many facilities will become obsolete
And for the most part, the current crop of drivers seems to be good and qualified only at piloting them in a straight line or though gentle curves on the Interstates. To watch them try to execute a 90-degree (or a little more) right-turns at even a multi-lane intersection that's old enough to still have some poles close to the corner causes me to look for a safer place - let alone the back-up maneuvers and attempts to "jack it in there" at the terminals or in tight street quarters for deliveries . . .
I have a feeling we're dealing with investor greed rather than operational acumen.
Convicted One This would present so many problems, to so many areas. Not only to intersections and inter-modal cars, but for anyone who has seen what 53' trailers can do to clog up warehouse complexes with facing docks originally built back when 40' trailers was standard....this will be a mess. Many, many facilities will become obsolete
Not only to intersections and inter-modal cars, but for anyone who has seen what 53' trailers can do to clog up warehouse complexes with facing docks originally built back when 40' trailers was standard....this will be a mess.
Remarks to be recorded in the
ANNALS of Understatement!
And Paul North made the following comment!:
"...And for the most part, the current crop of drivers seems to be good and qualified only at piloting them in a straight line or though gentle curves on the Interstates.
To watch them try to execute a 90-degree (or a little more) right-turns at even a multi-lane intersection that's old enough to still have some poles close to the corner causes me to look for a safer place - let alone the back-up maneuvers, and attempts to "jack it in there" at the terminals or in tight street quarters for deliveries . ". ."
There is absolutely more truth than poetry in the above statement paragraph by PDN!
Not failing to mention, that there some heavy truck drivers who are very skilled and talented at what they do, and they do it well.
BUT !, there are also those individuals who can be classed as "steering-wheel holders". Those, who in spite of testing, and skill validations, are functionally illiterate, too smart for their own good, hot headed, and can be said to have"... not seen the ball since the game started!" Which individuals give the whole trucking industry a bad rap
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.