ATA now supports longer and/or heavier trucks

[ndbprr]

Always has and always will. I expect legislation proposed by the truckers that when one of the ridiculous behomeths takes your half of the road because he can't turn legaly that you will be the cause of the accident by not yielding.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ndbprr

Always has and always will. I expect legislation proposed by the truckers that when one of the ridiculous behomeths takes your half of the road because he can't turn legaly that you will be the cause of the accident by not yielding.

Hmmmm, isn't that the same *logic* people use when they blame the railroad for them driving past activated road crossing gates?

C'mon, keep this discussion in perspective of normalcy!

[MJ4562]

While it might provide a slight benefit to domestic producers but it would be offset by higher taxes to pay for repairs to our highways and bridges, not to mention higher insurance costs. Manufacturers move overseas for cheaper labor and exemption from environmental regulation.

[Anonymous]

[tdn]

[Modelcar]

...No we don't want larger trucks on already crumbling infrastructures....It's somewhat scary out there now for mixing passenger cars and present sized trucks. Just because axle loadings would remain similar how about a lot more of them treading on that same bridge at the same time...increasing the wear and tear, etc....Bad idea.

[edbenton]

I can tell you one thing the drivers will fight this. Todays trucks are set to pull 40 tons at a decent speed uphill. Even adding 17 thousand pounds with a 3 trailer axle you will see fuel economy drop plus slower trucks up hills not to mention longer stopping distance. Driving a truck is hard enough with all the regulations that are out there let alone adding more weight onto the mix.

[Anonymous]

I think APG45 is correct on this one. On I-5 in Woodburn, Oregon there is a gigantic Winco warehouse that has so many truck stalls it's unreal, yet no rail spur at all when the P&W or maybe its Willamette Pacific is a stone's throw away. Personally I would like to see highway length and weight limits reduced to 1950s levels! Then I'm pretty sure we'll see industry get with the program in terms of conserving fuel.

[Anonymous]

I figured it would come sooner or later. The argument about slower trucks uphill is not all that valid. They make engines nowadays with up to 625 hp. With the proper gearing you should be able to pull that 150,000 lbs uphill doing a wheelie.

But all jokes aside, heavier and longer trucks=more payload which in turn equals more $$$ for the truck/fleet owner. I doubt it has anything to do with improving the overall domestic whatever you are trying to argue. It'll just enable more imported crap to be shuffled about with one truck.

[edbenton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by farmer03

I figured it would come sooner or later. The argument about slower trucks uphill is not all that valid. They make engines nowadays with up to 625 hp. So you should be able to pull that 150,000 lbs uphill doing a wheelie.

But all jokes aside, heavier and longer trucks=more payload which in turn equals more $$$ for the truck/fleet owner. I doubt it has anything to do with improving the overall domestic whatever you are trying to argue. It'll just enable more imported crap to be shuffled about with one truck.

They may have 625 hp but trucks are geared what they called gear fast run slow. When I drove a 550 Cat was a big engine and I drove one for a year and the best Icould do pulling Sherman hill on 80 eastbound was 42 mph with a 470 detroit I did 39 so not much better. You can have the biggest motor in the world gear it wrong and you are so messed up.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edbenton

QUOTE: Originally posted by farmer03

I figured it would come sooner or later. The argument about slower trucks uphill is not all that valid. They make engines nowadays with up to 625 hp. So you should be able to pull that 150,000 lbs uphill doing a wheelie.

But all jokes aside, heavier and longer trucks=more payload which in turn equals more $$$ for the truck/fleet owner. I doubt it has anything to do with improving the overall domestic whatever you are trying to argue. It'll just enable more imported crap to be shuffled about with one truck.

They may have 625 hp but trucks are geared what they called gear fast run slow. When I drove a 550 Cat was a big engine and I drove one for a year and the best Icould do pulling Sherman hill on 80 eastbound was 42 mph with a 470 detroit I did 39 so not much better. You can have the biggest motor in the world gear it wrong and you are so messed up.

This is true. I fixed my previous post. [oops]

But I think that's part of the problem I'd see with the increased weights. You don't see too many fleets with trucks geared and/or powered to really move down the road. They're all build to be the lightest and cheapest possible. Flimsy truck, with a fresh out of super trucker school driver and however much weight is proposed to be increased I wouldn't want to be on the highway with that.

[chicagorails]

more wear n tear to the allready rough roads. higher taxes
takes longer for heavier trucks to stop. more accidents.
are they not long enough? 40 ft. then 48 ft. then 53 ft. and 57 feet long !!
good news for traffic light manufacters. i couldnt make the corner , boss!!
makem bigger longer wider taller heavier, the rails can handle em,boys.!!

[edbenton]

Chicago is bad enough try taking a 53 into Philly or let alone Boston. The worst pulling truck I had was one tha t sucked the turbo hten blew 2 injectors try taking that into the NC hills to get the load off then head for teh shop.

[Kurn]

The ATA are a bunch of idiots.They support longer and heavier trucks,and at the same time call for speed limiters and horsepower reductions.I doubt any of them have actually seen a truck,let alone driven one.They lobby against owner operaters,the LTL and Teamster driven fleets,and small fleet owners.They only seem to represent the big truckload carriers(Schneider,Swift,etc.),so wages stay down and turnover stays high.

[Anonymous]

There are two problems with longer, heavier, trucks. The first is safety; it's already dangerous enough driving a double or (as some propose) a triple. Someone made the comment that the truck driver can pretty much act any old way he feels like acting; not so. CDL A license holders accumulate points on their licenses and NEVER lose them.

The second, and more costly part of the legislation has to do with infrastructure. No, not highway infrastructure- the private property infrastructure. Maneuvering a 53 foot trailer is a bear into some of the older docks; alley docks are a nightmare. The major retailers haven't done much in terms of improving their receiving areas or warehouses, and a common problem of today- moving freight on a schedule- is only going to get worse, not better. And, most metro areas don't have the intersections or surface streets to handle a 57 footer... which can get real tough on pedestrians.

Erik

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by APG45

While it might provide a slight benefit to domestic producers but it would be offset by higher taxes to pay for repairs to our highways and bridges, not to mention higher insurance costs. Manufacturers move overseas for cheaper labor and exemption from environmental regulation.

So you're saying auto drivers will be paying more in road fees? Can you back this up? We do know that one 160k truck can replace two 80k trucks. Would you rather increase the number of trucks on the road?

And BTW, not all US manufacturers have moved or are planning to move overseas. Why not cut them a break as incentive to succeed here? This attitude seems to confirm my suspicion that railroad folks have more loathing than love for those who provide the bulk of the business.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edbenton

I can tell you one thing the drivers will fight this. Todays trucks are set to pull 40 tons at a decent speed uphill. Even adding 17 thousand pounds with a 3 trailer axle you will see fuel economy drop plus slower trucks up hills not to mention longer stopping distance. Driving a truck is hard enough with all the regulations that are out there let alone adding more weight onto the mix.

Fuel economy will increase with higher GVW standards. You measure freight transportation efficiency on the amount of fuel used per ton mile. A 160k truck will have a higher ton/miles per gallon of fuel index than an 80k truck.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Luke M

I think APG45 is correct on this one. On I-5 in Woodburn, Oregon there is a gigantic Winco warehouse that has so many truck stalls it's unreal, yet no rail spur at all when the P&W or maybe its Willamette Pacific is a stone's throw away. Personally I would like to see highway length and weight limits reduced to 1950s levels! Then I'm pretty sure we'll see industry get with the program in terms of conserving fuel.

Hmmmm, do you want the US economy to also drop to 1950's levels? 'Cause that's what would happen. Oh yeah, a brilliant suggestion![banghead]

And do you think for even a moment that the railroads could provide the necessary carload service to emulate even a fraction of the service levels trucks provide to that Winco warehouse in terms of rates and delivery expediency?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by farmer03

I figured it would come sooner or later. The argument about slower trucks uphill is not all that valid. They make engines nowadays with up to 625 hp. With the proper gearing you should be able to pull that 150,000 lbs uphill doing a wheelie.

I was gonna ask how those Canadian truckers were managing to pull 160k. Thought for a moment someone was going to suggest that they use converted SW1500's!

QUOTE:
But all jokes aside, heavier and longer trucks=more payload which in turn equals more $$$ for the truck/fleet owner. I doubt it has anything to do with improving the overall domestic whatever you are trying to argue. It'll just enable more imported crap to be shuffled about with one truck.

I will disagree there. First of all, there are the two different aspects being proposed; higher GVW and longer LCV's. On the weight front, that will definately favor US ag and natural resource producers in getting product from farm/forest/mile etc. to the nearest rail terminal. On the length front, longer trailer combinations will be of great aid to UPS and other LCL carriers for domestic light bulky loads. Neither will be of aid to overseas importers, who will still depend on their US railroad allys to get them containerloads of crap to the inner city masses.

You're not going to see LCV's on city streets or county lanes, they will be stricly limited to enabled Interstates and other appropriate roadways. Most likely scenario is that an LCV consist will run as singles from point of origin to Interstate roadhead, as LCV's from Interstate roadhead to the distant Interstate roadhead, and then broken up again as singles for the haul from roadhead to final destination.

And you have to remember that the US railroad network is actually quite limited in it's coverage of most worthwhile freight corridors, let alone those within coverage that they are actually willing to serve. You're not going to use rail to ship a few truckloads from Boise to Flagstaff. First of all such a routing by rail would be twice as long as by highway, and secondly you'd have to deal with two different rail companies who more often than not would rather not cooperate for such less than 16,000 tons freight moves. Increasing both LVC and GVW standards will increase productivity in those corridors not effectively served by rail. And there are hundreds of such corridors in the US.

Unless someone can come up with more viable counterarguments, one can only conclude that higher LCV and GVW standards will be a win-win for the US economy. And it ain't gonna hurt the railroads one bit.

[samfp1943]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by farmer03

I figured it would come sooner or later. The argument about slower trucks uphill is not all that valid. They make engines nowadays with up to 625 hp. With the proper gearing you should be able to pull that 150,000 lbs uphill doing a wheelie.

I was gonna ask how those Canadian truckers were managing to pull 160k. Thought for a moment someone was going to suggest that they use converted SW1500's!

QUOTE:
But all jokes aside, heavier and longer trucks=more payload which in turn equals more $$$ for the truck/fleet owner. I doubt it has anything to do with improving the overall domestic whatever you are trying to argue. It'll just enable more imported crap to be shuffled about with one truck.

I will disagree there. First of all, there are the two different aspects being proposed; higher GVW and longer LCV's. On the weight front, that will definately favor US ag and natural resource producers in getting product from farm/forest/mile etc. to the nearest rail terminal. On the length front, longer trailer combinations will be of great aid to UPS and other LCL carriers for domestic light bulky loads. Neither will be of aid to overseas importers, who will still depend on their US railroad allys to get them containerloads of crap to the inner city masses.

You're not going to see LCV's on city streets or county lanes, they will be stricly limited to enabled Interstates and other appropriate roadways. Most likely scenario is that an LCV consist will run as singles from point of origin to Interstate roadhead, as LCV's from Interstate roadhead to the distant Interstate roadhead, and then broken up again as singles for the haul from roadhead to final destination.

And you have to remember that the US railroad network is actually quite limited in it's coverage of most worthwhile freight corridors, let alone those within coverage that they are actually willing to serve. You're not going to use rail to ship a few truckloads from Boise to Flagstaff. First of all such a routing by rail would be twice as long as by highway, and secondly you'd have to deal with two different rail companies who more often than not would rather not cooperate for such less than 16,000 tons freight moves. Increasing both LVC and GVW standards will increase productivity in those corridors not effectively served by rail. And there are hundreds of such corridors in the US.

Unless someone can come up with more viable counterarguments, one can only conclude that higher LCV and GVW standards will be a win-win for the US economy. And it ain't gonna hurt the railroads one bit.

I pretty much agree with the points that Farmer 03 and FM are making, But would add that when the size is increased through Federal legislation, it becomes a SHIPPER driven incentive to go with the bigger trailer on EVERY load. When the moves from "fourty's" to "Fourty-fives" to "Fourty-eigths" and then on to "fifty-threes" [trailer lengths] started happening shippers demanded the largest size trailer a carrier had available for their loads, they did not seem to care, they wanted the bigger trailers even if their loads would gross out before they cubed out, they wanted the bigger trailer to load.
It got rediculuous at some places, specifically those shippers with heavy loads you would wind up maxed on weight and have 15 feet left on the back of the trailer. Big trailers for "baloon" freight is necessary. As I said the size trailer[ being the bigger, the better] was a Marketing & Sales tool [bragging point] for the carriers, when dealing with the shippers.
LCV's will come, make no mistake about it, and the road infrastructure will be restricted all over the map to certain lanes, such as happened in the Northeastern states when the 53' trailer came in to wide spread use. Action that were necessary to protect older infrastructure, and puniative at the same time for the driver who strayed off poorly marked routes.
Sam

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by farmer03

I figured it would come sooner or later. The argument about slower trucks uphill is not all that valid. They make engines nowadays with up to 625 hp. With the proper gearing you should be able to pull that 150,000 lbs uphill doing a wheelie.

But all jokes aside, heavier and longer trucks=more payload which in turn equals more $$$ for the truck/fleet owner. I doubt it has anything to do with improving the overall domestic whatever you are trying to argue. It'll just enable more imported crap to be shuffled about with one truck.

Truck gearing is established for a certain speed. The ratio governs the "Sweet spot"

sure you can make it do a wheelie under 150k gross on a 12% Coal Road upgrade but your max speed will be 2 mph. And fuel consumption would be around 20 gallons an hour. At these rates would be out of fuel, waAAY behind schedule and not even out of pa yet.

Seriously, certain trucks handle upgrades fairly decent speeds.

Anyone can go uphill, it's the DOWNGRADES that kill.

I shore dont want to have to lug 150,000 pounds down Big Savage or Spotted Wolf in a roaring winter storm complete with ice or have to thread it down Fancy Gap without smoking before the scales at the bottom.

Weight, power, gravity and stability is the name of the game.

Increase the weight, beef the componets and increase your shop bill. Increase the length and still cube out of toilet paper before you reach gross weight. Any combination of increasing is a bad idea.

What we need to do is increase the freight rates, ease the draconian shipping and receiving scheduling and advocate and excecute a fundemental change in how professional drivers do thier jobs with the dispatchers and everyone else involved.

I can go on and on pushed by 15 years on the road but I better not.

I am against this proposal period. However, you want heavier and/or longer? Then beef up and FIX the *** interstate system first.

[MJ4562]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
So you're saying auto drivers will be paying more in road fees? Can you back this up? We do know that one 160k truck can replace two 80k trucks. Would you rather increase the number of trucks on the road?

No, I did not say that. I said heavier trucks would cause greater damage to our highways. If you doubt the damage done by trucks, just ask any highway engineer or your local highway dept . That leaves us two choices: either let our highways deteriorate further (causing greater harm to domestic transport) or increase funds allocated to highway maintenance. Exactly how that's paid for is up to the legislature. It might come in the form of higher fees on those trailers.

The damage is done not by the numbers of vehicles on the road but by their weight.

Can you back up your claim that it will benefit domestic manufacturers?
How would it benefit them more than direct incentives like tax reductions?

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
And BTW, not all US manufacturers have moved or are planning to move overseas. Why not cut them a break as incentive to succeed here?

While that's true. The manufacturers that are staying are doing so because they compete on things other than low cost. Saving a few pennies on transport is not likely to make a difference in their decision to stay.

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
This attitude seems to confirm my suspicion that railroad folks have more loathing than love for those who provide the bulk of the business.

You seem wrong. I have no connection with any railroad.

[Anonymous]

So, how big do trucks have to get before we can finnaly start improving the economy? Seventy feet? Eighty feet? One hudred feet? [:0]

I really think it makes no difference what size a trailer is to the railroad. What's the difference if a piggyback car has 2 fifty foot trailers or 1 one hundred foot trailer.

Now if the ATA would just foot the bill to rebuild all the intersections that these monsters will have to negotiate, buy all the trucking companies and railroads the required new equipment to handle them, and convince the general public that the increase in weight and length is a boost to the economy, this would be news worthy.

Otherwise it is just smoke and mirrors in the halls of Congress.

[Anonymous]

APG45 - You're missing the salient point. When you say that heavier trucks will cause more road damage (than current GVW standards), you are apparently assuming that the weight per axle/per wheel will increase, which is not the case. Two 80k trucks (each riding on 18 wheels/5 axles) actually cause more road damage than a prospective 150k truck riding on 36 wheels/8 axles (2 steering wheels, 2 idler wheels, 8 drive wheels on two axles, 2 sets of 12 wheels each on three axles), even though the total cargo weight is the same.

On the LCV front, it is the same thing. Two 53' 50k trailers being pulled by a single cab unit will cause less road damage than if those same two trailers are being pulled by two separate cab units, because the double combo eliminates the tare weight of one of the cab units.

That's why I think all these tears falling forth by pro-railroad types over "increased" road damage are of the crocodile variety, because no matter how you slice it increasing GVW and LCV standards will definitely not increase road damage, and will actually decrease road damage relative to revenue loads. The only way this fear could be realized is if weight per wheel/axle was allowed to be increased, and I don't see that happening.

Don't forget that Canada allows GVW standards up to 160k or so, and it does make a difference in the softwood lumber market in that this allows Canadian transport rates to be lower relative to US transport rates. And yes, a few pennies in such hotly competitive markets does make a difference.

NS2317 - I'm curious. Why do you think that intersections will need to be rebuilt? Are you still of the mindset that you'd see double 53' combos driving on city streets? Did you miss the point I made that the likelyhood is such LCV's would be restricted to Interstate highways and other compatitble roads? What will happen is that trailers will be delivered to the roadhead singly, then combined at the head of the Interstate. When the destination is approached, the consist will be broken up back to single trailers for the final leg of the journey.

And there would be no need to build all new TOFC equipment, since most spine cars are spec'd for 53' and some are spec'd for 57'. Trucking companies will just use 5th wheel dollies to connect the trailing trailer. An example of the savings by these new proposals will be the ability of trucks to pull two 20' containers (or a 40'/20' ; 40'/40' combo) using the b-train configuration, whereas now we are limited to one container per truck. It should be noted that both the 20/20 and 20/40 combos would still fit into the current length standard.

[edbenton]

If I was still out there and anymore I am glad I am not. I would flat out refuse to pull a 160K combo down any of the major interstate grades. Take Cajon Grapevine or god help parley in utah. There is no way you would saftely get a rig that heavy down grade without burning the brakes up no engine brake out there can hold that much weight.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Kurn

The ATA are a bunch of idiots.They support longer and heavier trucks,and at the same time call for speed limiters and horsepower reductions.I doubt any of them have actually seen a truck,let alone driven one.They lobby against owner operaters,the LTL and Teamster driven fleets,and small fleet owners.They only seem to represent the big truckload carriers(Schneider,Swift,etc.),so wages stay down and turnover stays high.

Kurn - what a well reasoned, insightful and un-emotional response. Thank you for that. Do you have any actual data on how many owner operators are employed by the "big guys?" The answer is many thousands are employed by each of the top 3 truckload carriers. Can you explain why Schneider, Swift, etc would be in favor of high turnover? Lets see.... it costs nearly $10,000 per driver to recruit a replacment .... yeah .... high turn over.... that makes good economic sense..... I'm gonna push for that!!

Are you aware of any of the actual data on what some of the big carriers have done with driver wages and time at home in the last few years? More money and more time at home - those dirty so -and -so's......

Maybe you need to file away your emotions - think through your arguments and then speak.

[edbenton]

I just saw that Heartland Express is now paying 50 cents a mile to run for them and they gove around 2500 miles a week. Heck the last company I drove for now pays 38 cpm and there you get around 3500 a week and I know that comapny gives that I ran it week end week out.

[Anonymous]

You talk about the 160k in Canada, but does Canada have even a fraction of the traffic the US does? I doubt it.

The majority of roads are junk because they were built that way. Crumbling roads keeps the construction companies working, job security. Joe Blo Contracting sends his wife's apple pies with the envelope of money to his local congressman every so often (anyone who's been following the Ryan trial in IL knows what I'm talking about). One can go on for hours on how government money should be spent and how it should be allocated. Who needs a Mars rover? I personally don't, I think we need 6 lane interstates instead.

I'm still not convinced hauling heavier and longer will be the saving grace of the American economy. What is being advocated is doing more with less. One driver hauling what two could before, so now you only have to pay one driver instead of two...making more money with the truck.

I think what is needed is a uniform transportation policy(?). Weight and length should be the same across every state and the speed limit should be the same across the country. In Illinois for example, UPS can only pull doubles. But when said driver gets to the Indiana border he goes to the yard in Gary and picks up a third for his ride across Indiana. Why not allow him to pull triples across the country instead?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edbenton

I just saw that Heartland Express is now paying 50 cents a mile to run for them and they gove around 2500 miles a week. Heck the last company I drove for now pays 38 cpm and there you get around 3500 a week and I know that comapny gives that I ran it week end week out.

Then you spend time waiting. Produce reefer work can make you wait up to 50 hours or more waiting on the loading. That time is unpaid. Then there is alot of lost time due to various other factors over a trip. Finally but not the least is the expenses on the road. Also paid miles does not reflect real life ground travel from point a to b. I think there can be as much as a 20% loss.

50 cents a mile today at the rates a rig runs is still about the same as .20 cents a mile 12 years ago, instead of 5.00 dinners you pay like 12 or more today.

I have seen cases where roads were built very strongly in Germany and after 40 years are in pretty good shape. Here they only last 5-10 years at the most. If that.

Trucking is one of the hardest way to make a dollar... err.. a nickel. I think railroads have the advantage because they can haul many loads at once.

[ouengr]

I am a civil engineer and I have designed transportation systems. I can think of no idea more short sighted and stupid than to increase the allowable length or weight of highway trailers. Our bridges are not designed to support the total weight regarldess of the axle configuartion. The "distribution" of the load on the asphalt will results in minimal improvment since the rebond time for the asphalt is practically zero. This will result in a jackhammer effect compounding the damage to the asphalt.

We need to get the mid distance and long distance trucks off of the roads and on the rails. The roadrailer system is one of the most efficient means of transportation today. Frankly, the ATA is greedy and is not concerened with who they kill or the additional expenses they thrust on the American people. [:(!]

[zardoz]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Safety Valve
I have seen cases where roads were built very strongly in Germany and after 40 years are in pretty good shape. Here they only last 5-10 years at the most. If that.

I seem to remember years ago seeing a documentary about the roads in western Europe. My understanding is that the builders of certain roads are required to guarantee the construction for a certain length of time; if repairs became necessary, the contractor had to foot the bill. The construction cost was initially higher, but in the long run it is much cheaper.

Of course, the "long run" is rarely considered anymore (think Amtrak, highway construction/repair, etc). Did you ever notice that when a city/state/federal project is completed, it is barely sufficient to handle today's load; by the next year it is already inadequate. Very rarely do you see a project done that looks to the needs of the near-future; sometimes, but rarely.

And no, I do not have a verifiable source of this info, just what is left of my ageing memory.

[samfp1943]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Safety Valve

QUOTE: Originally posted by edbenton

I just saw that Heartland Express is now paying 50 cents a mile to run for them and they gove around 2500 miles a week. Heck the last company I drove for now pays 38 cpm and there you get around 3500 a week and I know that comapny gives that I ran it week end week out.

Then you spend time waiting. Produce reefer work can make you wait up to 50 hours or more waiting on the loading. That time is unpaid. Then there is alot of lost time due to various other factors over a trip. Finally but not the least is the expenses on the road. Also paid miles does not reflect real life ground travel from point a to b. I think there can be as much as a 20% loss.

50 cents a mile today at the rates a rig runs is still about the same as .20 cents a mile 12 years ago, instead of 5.00 dinners you pay like 12 or more today.

I have seen cases where roads were built very strongly in Germany and after 40 years are in pretty good shape. Here they only last 5-10 years at the most. If that.

Trucking is one of the hardest way to make a dollar... err.. a nickel. I think railroads have the advantage because they can haul many loads at once.

We are going to need stronger things than soda and popcorn for this discussion:
This argument is a modern version of the old circular discussion "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"
You could start with the construction of the highway network:
The engineer works out the map of what is needed to build a road to carry a projected
traffic load specified by planners. Bearing in mind that the original Interstate Highway truck model was the military 6x6 truck [ the system was the originally the [/b]Millitary and Defense Highway Network,[/b] clearances and curvatures designed to also accomodate the Army's Atomic Cannon, and facilitate its movement in case the Cold War became a Hot War { minimum height was to clear 16'} and that was one of the selling points for the Eisenhower Administration to Congress and Senate]. about that time The the Atomic Cannon was removed from the active inventory ,and then the politicians and the bureaucrats then came in and started wheedling down the specifications [ to save money[V] ] they cut the figures for the road right of way by decreasing the specs for radii in curves and ramp areas, and decreasing the clearance height of the bridges over the roadways [ established a clearance height of 13' 6", particularly in the Eastern half of the US where land values were much higher and much money could be saved] further cutting expenses by incorporating roads that were already four lanes, or divided or limited access [ The Pennsylvania Turnpike is an example of this I-76].
Then the trucking industry found out that they could use the "better utilization/productivity argument"to gain governmental approval of incremental increases in size and weight of trucks, letting improvement to the physical road net happen on an "as needed " basis[V]
As stated previously in this thread, these size increases were driven by SHIPPERS demanding the equipment and the Sales and Marketing folks at the carriers facilitating the availibility of the larger equipment.
Then it comes down to the drivers[ it always does, so far, ya' gotta have that driver/ lumper[?] holding the steering wheel, and available to supervise loading and unloading-Yeah,[:0]Right! Companies always assume that he or she will do what is necessary to get the load on and off as needed, and do whatever it takes to deliver the load[ read: get paid], usually the pay for the time spent doing the job was always in question. Dependent on how much the individual driver could stomach before looking for another driving job. Which is an extrapolation of the "The Grass is always greener at the next company's operation".
Of course, the ATA will always support the bigger,longer, heavier, wider,higher truck, and the AAR will on principle oppose their position, and the driver will always climb behind the wheel of that rig, which will mostly be underpowered [ to please the insurance carriers, and get the best fuel mileage] and the driver will do what ever it takes to run the load to an unrealistic delivery schedule, based on a 50 mph average speed that is neetly figured by the dispatcher, but somehow always escapes the real worls reality of weather, traffic, driver's available hours and how close to home is the driver going to be when empty or enroute ["Dispatch, I just stopped by the house to get a kiss and change of clothes and see the kids, and wouldn't you just know it, the truck won't start." Darn, the luck![:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]]
Sam

[edbenton]

It does not help also that the biggest issue facing the trucking industry is the exodus of older dirvers they are reaching retirement and are glad to leave it behind. I for one did and I miss the travel but not the waiting to load tehn find out sorry reciever will not reschedulae. Wal mart is the worse on that. But also the fact that we are gulity til proven innocent in any traffic accident t does not help. The one thing that makes my blood boil are the new breed drivers which complain that we get no respect yet they are the ones who cut off everyone and then forget simple courtesy.

[Anonymous]

This elusive 'simple courtesy' hasn't been around for a long time, no matter how many wheels the vehicle has.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ouengr

I am a civil engineer and I have designed transportation systems. I can think of no idea more short sighted and stupid than to increase the allowable length or weight of highway trailers. Our bridges are not designed to support the total weight regarldess of the axle configuartion. The "distribution" of the load on the asphalt will results in minimal improvment since the rebond time for the asphalt is practically zero. This will result in a jackhammer effect compounding the damage to the asphalt.

So you're saying Canadian bridges and roadway pavements are superior to the US versions? And you also seem to be saying that it is better for 60 tons of cargo to be moved in two separate truck/trailers rather than being consolidated on one truck, regardless of weight displacement via wheel/pavement interaction. You as a civil engineer should know that more damage will result from the 2 x 80k as opposed to the 1 x 150k (axle/wheel weights being equal).

Those light load bridges you refer to have been for the most part replaced from major highway corridors. Can you give an example of an at risk bridge on our current Interstate System, e.g. one that would deteriorate at an accelerated rate if we replace 2 x 80k with 1 x 150k? Remember, doubling the allowable GVW will not result in a doubling of total tonnage moving over our highways. We are assuming total aggregate tonnage will only continue to increase at currently predicted trends. Why not actually decrease total aggregate tare tonnage relative to load tonnage?

QUOTE:
We need to get the mid distance and long distance trucks off of the roads and on the rails. The roadrailer system is one of the most efficient means of transportation today. Frankly, the ATA is greedy and is not concerened with who they kill or the additional expenses they thrust on the American people. [:(!]

Whereas the AAR and its minions are not the least bit greedy, have grave concern for who they kill/hospitalize/put on disability, and are deeply concerned about the additional expenses they thrust on the American people?[(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D]

Perhaps you did not get the memo -
1. The railroads are running at near capacity, due to decades of purposeful retrenchment to reduce *excess* capacity. They simply do not have room to accomodate all those mid and long distance trucks, even if they could be bothered to accomodate the business.
2. Rail corridors are few and far between compared to our Interstate and US Highway network. As a civil engineer, how do you propose to address this lack of rail network saturation across the country?
3. Because of terminal consolidation/line abandonments/etc. the railroads now more than ever are almost totally dependent on trucks to get the goods to and from the railhead. Even mid and long haul trucks can act as feeders to the railroads, due to the fact of #2 above. I have asked railroaders to answer this question, and have gotten no legit responses: Do you really think the US rail industry is better off if truck weights and lengths are limited? If so, how so?

[beefmalone]

The idea that bigger/longer trucks will create jobs or stem the tidal wave of job loss to overseas is a red herring. Transportation is NOT why we're losing jobs. It's CHEAP LABOR. I think that cross-pacific container trip would more than account for any savings by keeping the jobs over here, but we still lose them. Our road system is just NOT DESIGNED for these super-long trucks. It's bad enough now...I can't imagine how much worse gridlock there would be with them 2x as long not to mention being able to stop those behemoths in an emergency...whoever is in front of them is pretty much screwed.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

NS2317 - I'm curious. Why do you think that intersections will need to be rebuilt? Are you still of the mindset that you'd see double 53' combos driving on city streets? Did you miss the point I made that the likelyhood is such LCV's would be restricted to Interstate highways and other compatitble roads? What will happen is that trailers will be delivered to the roadhead singly, then combined at the head of the Interstate. When the destination is approached, the consist will be broken up back to single trailers for the final leg of the journey.

And there would be no need to build all new TOFC equipment, since most spine cars are spec'd for 53' and some are spec'd for 57'. Trucking companies will just use 5th wheel dollies to connect the trailing trailer. An example of the savings by these new proposals will be the ability of trucks to pull two 20' containers (or a 40'/20' ; 40'/40' combo) using the b-train configuration, whereas now we are limited to one container per truck. It should be noted that both the 20/20 and 20/40 combos would still fit into the current length standard.

Futuremodal,

So, which is it. Longer trailers with more weight or doubling up existing trailers that are high cube and can hold more weight? The article does mention doubles but it seems to me that the ATA is legislating longer trailers with more weight capacity. Regardless of the two, most of these longer trucks will still end up OTR and have to exit the highway to fuel, rest ect.

With trucks stopping to double up don't you create a choke point, such as what the railroad calls a classifiaction yard? If trucks are using the highway, chances are they might as well just keep on trucking to the destination rather than hand the freight off to the railroad, anyway. Also keep in mind that your idea of handing off to the railroad will most likely take place in a cramped city area where space is rather scarce on roads that were designed for use by smaller delivery trucks at best. The same goes for delivery of these trailers to the destination.

From experience, I would not reli***he idea of adding even more weight or length to a commercial vehicle. Even more so if the thing was double articulated! This legislation may look good on paper, but in practice sounds like a very bad idea, regardless of whatever illusionary economical benefits there might be, period.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by beefmalone

The idea that bigger/longer trucks will create jobs or stem the tidal wave of job loss to overseas is a red herring. Transportation is NOT why we're losing jobs. It's CHEAP LABOR. I think that cross-pacific container trip would more than account for any savings by keeping the jobs over here, but we still lose them. Our road system is just NOT DESIGNED for these super-long trucks. It's bad enough now...I can't imagine how much worse gridlock there would be with them 2x as long not to mention being able to stop those behemoths in an emergency...whoever is in front of them is pretty much screwed.

Again, I ask: How is it that the Canadians are able to cope with 150k trucks? You people make it sound as if the sky will fall if trucks are allowed their natural GVW's and lengths. How do Canadian truck safety stats compare to US stats?

And where is this "tidal wave" of job losses overseas? Or have you even checked the latest unemployment/average income numbers for the US? To reiterate, no one said improving the load factor of the US transportation system would stop any such job losses overseas, as much as they may actually happen. What is true however is that improving the load factor will also improve the cost numbers, which in competitive markets (such as trucking) end up being passed on to consumers (unlike monopolistic markets such as railroading). Why do you consider that a bad thing, so much so that you would oppose that end?

The hyperbole being directed in opposition of allowing trucks to approach natural weight and length limits is the real red herring.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by NS2317

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

NS2317 - I'm curious. Why do you think that intersections will need to be rebuilt? Are you still of the mindset that you'd see double 53' combos driving on city streets? Did you miss the point I made that the likelyhood is such LCV's would be restricted to Interstate highways and other compatitble roads? What will happen is that trailers will be delivered to the roadhead singly, then combined at the head of the Interstate. When the destination is approached, the consist will be broken up back to single trailers for the final leg of the journey.

And there would be no need to build all new TOFC equipment, since most spine cars are spec'd for 53' and some are spec'd for 57'. Trucking companies will just use 5th wheel dollies to connect the trailing trailer. An example of the savings by these new proposals will be the ability of trucks to pull two 20' containers (or a 40'/20' ; 40'/40' combo) using the b-train configuration, whereas now we are limited to one container per truck. It should be noted that both the 20/20 and 20/40 combos would still fit into the current length standard.

Futuremodal,

So, which is it. Longer trailers with more weight or doubling up existing trailers that are high cube and can hold more weight? The article does mention doubles but it seems to me that the ATA is legislating longer trailers with more weight capacity. Regardless of the two, most of these longer trucks will still end up OTR and have to exit the highway to fuel, rest ect.

With trucks stopping to double up don't you create a choke point, such as what the railroad calls a classifiaction yard? If trucks are using the highway, chances are they might as well just keep on trucking to the destination rather than hand the freight off to the railroad, anyway. Also keep in mind that your idea of handing off to the railroad will most likely take place in a cramped city area where space is rather scarce on roads that were designed for use by smaller delivery trucks at best. The same goes for delivery of these trailers to the destination.

From experience, I would not reli***he idea of adding even more weight or length to a commercial vehicle. Even more so if the thing was double articulated! This legislation may look good on paper, but in practice sounds like a very bad idea, regardless of whatever illusionary economical benefits there might be, period.

Again, (and in a spate of deja vu) I ask: How is it that the Canadians are able to cope with heavier GVW trucks? Or do you remember all the nonsensical fuss created over some Western states allowing triple 30's on certain Interstates? Well, we've had triple combos for two decades now, where are the stats to back up the contention that longer LVC's will cause more congestion, etc.? You see, it's just nonsense to suggest such a thing, because what actually happens is an aggregate improvement in over the road efficiency. This efficiency can embody such benefits as reducing the actual number of rigs on the highway, reducing pollution, reducing fuel use per ton of cargo, etc.

The suggestion put forth by some that we should reduce allowable GVW and trailer length would consequently have the opposite effect - more rigs on the highway, more pollution, lower fuel efficiency, etc.

Now, why would anyone in their right mind want that to happen?

[Anonymous]

I was going to post again but am feeling ill because I think the powers that be who approved of the extra weights and/or the lengths are living in a rose colored ivory tower without any consideration for the driver who must use them and the traveler who needs to work around them.

Thank you everyone for some very good thoughts on this thread, I step off the soapbox to get a case of anti acids.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by NS2317

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

NS2317 - I'm curious. Why do you think that intersections will need to be rebuilt? Are you still of the mindset that you'd see double 53' combos driving on city streets? Did you miss the point I made that the likelyhood is such LCV's would be restricted to Interstate highways and other compatitble roads? What will happen is that trailers will be delivered to the roadhead singly, then combined at the head of the Interstate. When the destination is approached, the consist will be broken up back to single trailers for the final leg of the journey.

And there would be no need to build all new TOFC equipment, since most spine cars are spec'd for 53' and some are spec'd for 57'. Trucking companies will just use 5th wheel dollies to connect the trailing trailer. An example of the savings by these new proposals will be the ability of trucks to pull two 20' containers (or a 40'/20' ; 40'/40' combo) using the b-train configuration, whereas now we are limited to one container per truck. It should be noted that both the 20/20 and 20/40 combos would still fit into the current length standard.

Futuremodal,

So, which is it. Longer trailers with more weight or doubling up existing trailers that are high cube and can hold more weight? The article does mention doubles but it seems to me that the ATA is legislating longer trailers with more weight capacity. Regardless of the two, most of these longer trucks will still end up OTR and have to exit the highway to fuel, rest ect.

With trucks stopping to double up don't you create a choke point, such as what the railroad calls a classifiaction yard? If trucks are using the highway, chances are they might as well just keep on trucking to the destination rather than hand the freight off to the railroad, anyway. Also keep in mind that your idea of handing off to the railroad will most likely take place in a cramped city area where space is rather scarce on roads that were designed for use by smaller delivery trucks at best. The same goes for delivery of these trailers to the destination.

From experience, I would not reli***he idea of adding even more weight or length to a commercial vehicle. Even more so if the thing was double articulated! This legislation may look good on paper, but in practice sounds like a very bad idea, regardless of whatever illusionary economical benefits there might be, period.

Again, (and in a spate of deja vu) I ask: How is it that the Canadians are able to cope with heavier GVW trucks? Or do you remember all the nonsensical fuss created over some Western states allowing triple 30's on certain Interstates? Well, we've had triple combos for two decades now, where are the stats to back up the contention that longer LVC's will cause more congestion, etc.? You see, it's just nonsense to suggest such a thing, because what actually happens is an aggregate improvement in over the road efficiency. This efficiency can embody such benefits as reducing the actual number of rigs on the highway, reducing pollution, reducing fuel use per ton of cargo, etc.

The suggestion put forth by some that we should reduce allowable GVW and trailer length would consequently have the opposite effect - more rigs on the highway, more pollution, lower fuel efficiency, etc.

Now, why would anyone in their right mind want that to happen?

Ask a Canadian how they cope.

You are living in a country with a love of it's automobiles. Ask any American what they think about sharing the roads with even larger and heavier commercial vehicles. Chances are, you would not get the response you desire. Those are the plain hard facts. Ask any OTR driver what they think of navigating larger and heavier vehicles through the public road system and again, probably not the response you would be looking for. So, for the ATA to be pushing for heavier and longer trucks seems to me to be nothing more than a "vehicle" to further some hidden agenda, which by the way has nothing to do with the railroads or the trucking industry.

As for the original question, "For what possible reason would Class I railroads continue to oppose increased weight and length limits for trucks?", the answer is easy. "Give em' an inch and they'll take a mile." [:)]

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

There is one problem to allowing larger gross weight and longer trucks on only controlled-access highways and certain other roads while barring them from "tight-clearance" city/suburban roads and streets. Since not all large shippers are conveniently located on the roads that would allow the larger trucks, a certain amount of trans-loading or breakdown of triple-bottom rigs (with its own set of costs) would be required.

Other postings have suggested that allowing larger trucks is a political hot potato and their musings are on the mark in this regard.

[edbenton]

I talked to a couple friends of mine that are still drivers. They flat out said I will work at Mcdonalds than go any longer or heavier. These drivers all have 20 plus yrs out there and they hate it now.

[samfp1943]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edbenton

I talked to a couple friends of mine that are still drivers. They flat out said I will work at Mcdonalds than go any longer or heavier. These drivers all have 20 plus yrs out there and they hate it now.

And the truck driving schools continue to mint out new drivers whose heads are full of war stories, and mistaken ideas. Individuals, who in reality, "have not seen the ball since the game started." New drivers who will tell their dispatchers, "...that they won't run illegal for anybody, and they run by the rules...." Drivers that will soon be advanced out, without pay ckecks of any meaningful size to take home, when they get the opportunity. Or they want to go home every week-end. They soon learn what it takes to make a living, or to move on, accumulate experience,and then apply for a better job. As with evey job, entry level is just that, hard work, little appreciation, and nut bustin' work, until some seniority is accrued.
Ed is right, today, trucking sucks, and it is sounding louder and louder.
Sam

[edbenton]

Sam I agree with you to a T. I did things when I drove that now scare the HELL out of me. 44 hours Salinas to Salem IL 2300 miles total length paid miles. I wonder how did I not kill someone on that run. My doctor says my epielpsy could be due to all the so called legal things I took to stay awake to do runs like that. I know more than once I was awake 36 40 hours at a time to get loads delivered on time.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edbenton

Sam I agree with you to a T. I did things when I drove that now scare the HELL out of me. 44 hours Salinas to Salem IL 2300 miles total length paid miles. I wonder how did I not kill someone on that run. My doctor says my epielpsy could be due to all the so called legal things I took to stay awake to do runs like that. I know more than once I was awake 36 40 hours at a time to get loads delivered on time.

***, good thing I'm a 9-5'er (so to speak) driving a truck. I don't know how you guys can do that.

[art11758]

I'm following along here and I have a question for you traveling types. Ever driven on the roads in Canada? They were really beat up when I was there trucking over twenty years ago. In Michigan you are allowed 167K on an I seem to recall 11 axle combination. The roads there stink too! In NY on the thruway system they have those staging areas for the big turnpike twins. Still gotta break 'em down and set 'em up. Bigger trucks were always the idea of the shippers and recievers. Everyone execept the driver wins. I, like Ed and Sam, don't miss a minute of the bull that went with what was an interesting job when I was younger. (not commenting on that no sleep stuff though......)

[csxns]

Now who will pay for the staging areas us taxpayers or the trucking compaines.

[PBenham]

The problem is that we will pay the costs of larger trucks one way or another. One way is that if they have to go on using the "inefficient" trucks allowed on the highways now, we will be paying more for everything since transportation costs will rise faster than our wages. But if we allow bigger trucks we will STILL be paying for the needed repairs, re-design work and re-construction of the interstates in the form of higher taxes. We are going to pay one way or another here. When railroads have to re-build themselves most, if not all the costs and the[censored], will come out of their pockets and ours. How? Well, interest rates will go up on all other loans made by the banks to the railroads, since they have to "hedge their bets", Protecting a risky venture the way they always do-- by raising rates and fees charged to their "bottom feeding" customers.[B)] I apologize to you all for that, but, that is how your bank looks at you and(more important) at me![*^_^*]

[Anonymous]

OMG here we go again.

"War stories" "Ideas about running legal" "Dreams of good living and fat paychecks" among the students in current trucking schools.

When I went to MY trucking school the class was about 5 instructors and 20 people. We had equiptment ranging from the old WC whites to a Transtar that was used for road training. Sure there was some "Fun and Games" and a bit of what we called Rodeo. (Not the sanitized and sponsored rodeos of today) but the class dealt with fears that each one of us had in a variety of ways and drummed into us that trucking is brutal, dangerous and will cost lives, property and injuries if you cannot stand up to the duties required of you. (Sounds sorta like rairloading huh?)

My "war stories" will scare the hell out of any student wanna be trucker. And cause companies to seriously consider if they want to hire me. They probably would because I can "Legally" turn 15,000 miles a month by myself while requiring TWO oil changes on the same tractor in that time period. And "Running Legal?" I should have been arrested and the dispatchers fired LONG time ago but whose fault is that? Mine. I say "Yes sir" click that load onto MY fifth wheel and set in for that 3000 mile run that will pay 2200 miles and required delivery in 3 days (With 14 hours lost already due to process of actually getting a load)

I stand with arms akimo and laugh bitterly when I see that 50 young drivers fill orientation each week with dreams (And any one should have good dreams and aspirations during a prospective new hire process) that are about to be shattered when the dispatchers quit the honeymoon 1000 mile a week and start demanding JIT service under threat of firing if service failed.

Many many people become casulties of this type of work. I think that I did ok, but I am not ok... know what I mean? What about the cyclist I almost killed in New York because I did not get enough sleep? Will that man I missed "By this MUCH" scream every night having night mares of that 53' trailer blazing by 5 inches from his left side at 70 mph plus while choking on brake smoke and rubber burn from my wheels?

No. Longer and heavier trucks. NO. we fix the trucking at the dispatcher and driver level and make the shipping, recieving process much more friendly time wise. When I started we would get california to new jersey in a 8 day period. PLENTY of time to do the job right especially in a unforgiving western mountains filled with ice, snow and other terrors that confront the weak. No. We have to do it in 3 days after just finishing a 5 day marathon run that has exhausted the driver.

My personal record is Garden City Kansas to just North of Salinas by way of Flagstaff AZ non stop. I have had many other runs and no one to blame but me. I just thank god that no one has been killed while I drove. Just scared senseless and unable to function yes... but not killed. That was the first and last rule I was taught in school, never take a life when you are on duty.

I broke many rules but never that one thank the lord.

I suppose that I feel very strongly about actually adding weight or length to an already maxed out trucking fleet horsewhipped by greedy shippers who cannot pay one bloody cent more than what they paid 10 years ago on the god*** 40' trailers simply because there are just too many hungry drivers out there willing to take a load to get something to eat and maybe feed the family for that week.

THAT is where problem is, how do you think Airline pilots are able to do thier jobs? Pay em well and protect thier hours. THEN give them equiptment strong enough to the task and teach them the duty and need to live it well as they travel. The rest will take care of itself.

What a waste. 100,000 very good drivers probably said "No more" and went back home to work in McDonalds or tend to the family. We probably went thru 500,000 more drivers who only discovered the reason why they got hired so fast the first week.

This entire problem facing trucking in the USA cannot be fixed by paving good roads (It will help immensly) or adding more capacity (Sure please that shipper happy to be rid of the product) or increasing the weights (Sure over tax the Law Enforcement who must then upgrade or build new stronger scales to fine the unwary driver or company on)

It can only be fixed by a deep fundemental cultural change in trucking and it has to start with the scheduling.

I remember when satellite communication showed up. I was a happy driver being able to communicate. Little did I know that satellite will be whored as a "Time management" TOOL by dispatch eager to get the last mile out of the truck before midnight. It took me some time before I realized this little fact.

Seems like too many loads are "Hot" only to rot in the warehouse a day or two before it is actually consumed. I refuse to haul another hot load unless it is ammunition for the military who needs it or medicines for the sick who need them right now. NOT widgets or toilet paper or some such that rots on a walmart shelf 2 months.

That folks is why some drivers refuse to run. They have seen the light and hopefully are enjoying a better (Not necessarily richer) life to save what was wasted and lost while trying to serve the alter of the almighty dollar.

[edbenton]

Saftey Valve you nailed it right on the head there. At my last company I was the what the personal director the make or break em trainer. I got them at the end of teh honeymoon so to speak. This company does not turn any driver loose solo til tehy have at least a year OTR experiance. I got this one trainee and he flat out said I only drive 400 miles in my shift and then I am done. I told him either you start going 600 miles a shift our get the hell out of the truck right now. He started to cry in the personal office to the retention director one of my friends. Mic looked him in the eye andsaid shut up and do your job the guy you are with is the hardest runner we have. That guy quit that day.

What needs to be done instead of increasing weghts is to have it so the drivers drive and shippers and recievers load and or unload the goods. This crap about having to load 45000 lbs of product then have to unload it at the other end sucks. The one way that all this will change is for the companies to get together and say you want it moved you load and unload it then our part is to haul it. Also the issue of detention time needs to be addressed were you are held more than 2 hours to load or unload [past your appt time then the driver gets 20 bucks an hour. The shipper should be billed 60 bucks an hour to cover the costs for the company. I know none of this will happen so sorry for getting on my[soapbox] but I need to clear the air.

[Anonymous]

Dave, unfortunately, is mixing apples and oranges
when he compares Canada's transportation system
to ours. Canada's population is less than 11%
of the United States.

http://www.statcan.ca/english/edu/clock/population.htm

http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

Its GDP is less than 1/11the size of the United States.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html

We have 4,180,053 km of paved roads versus Canada's
493,080 km.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ca.html

He ignores the physics of larger and heavier trucks
and the danger they pose to occupants of passenger
vehicles.

http://safety.transportation.org/doc/1p%20heavy%20trucks.pdf

As well as the driver psychology of motorists dealing with
ultra-heavy trucks.

He is correct that ultra-heavy trucks would reduce
the total number of trucks on the nation's highways,
but does not acknowledge the negative impact on our
highway bridges and overpasses

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/research-center/Completed_Proj/Summary_STR/FDOT_379.pdf

He offers a faith-based assertion that longer and
heavier trucks will aid American manufacturers
and bring more efficiency to the American economy,
which they may, but at what cost?

He postulates that we should allow ultra-heavy
trucks to approach their "natural weight and length limits"
without citing where in nature he found these data.
(Is a 200k GVW load and quadruple trailers un-natural?)

He doesn't offer a single fact supporting his argument
that "transportation policies favor imports over domestic
production." We didn't lose our consumer electronics
industry because of transportation policies, nor our
textile industry for that matter.

Should we worry about the trade deficit and our
anemic rate of savings? Absolutely, but if Honda
can produce a better car in this country than Ford,
I'm going to buy the Honda.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-id.trend19mar19,0,167898.story?coll=bal-business-headlines

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2005/20050414/default.htm

Just keep those ultra-heavy trucks off the highways.

Dave

[ouengr]

QUOTE:
So you're saying Canadian bridges and roadway pavements are superior to the US versions?

No, different design standards. If you want to rebuild the entire system including all intersections, on ramps, etc then you could carry larger trucks. As it stands today, we do NOT design for the 53' trailer. IT IS STILL NOT A DESIGN VEHICLE IN THE US.

QUOTE:
And you also seem to be saying that it is better for 60 tons of cargo to be moved in two separate truck/trailers rather than being consolidated on one truck, regardless of weight displacement via wheel/pavement interaction. You as a civil engineer should know that more damage will result from the 2 x 80k as opposed to the 1 x 150k (axle/wheel weights being equal).

Your statement about the impact being equal is absolutely incorrect. I am not going to get into the advanced material reasons why, accept to state that the additional loads create strain further into the elastic portion of the deformation curve.

You seem to have the idea that additiional axles will reduce the structural loads on pavement. The loads are not converyed strait downto the subgrade. The loads are conveyed in a conical distrubution. Yes the addition of axles may reduce the surface stress but have little impact on the finite element stresses further in the pavement or subgrade.

QUOTE:
Those light load bridges you refer to have been for the most part replaced from major highway corridors. Can you give an example of an at risk bridge on our current Interstate System, e.g. one that would deteriorate at an accelerated rate if we replace 2 x 80k with 1 x 150k?

Bridges are designed to carry a specfic design weight. When you increase the weight on an individual span of a bridge the stresses and strains increase. Concrete and asphalt have a finite number of load cycles that they can carry before they fail. The higher the loads, the reduced number of cycles. The relationship is not linear. A 100T load may inelastically stress a beam to failure. A 10T load may permit 50 cycles. A 10lb load may permit hundreds of thousands of cycles. An increased load causes loading in a different portion of the of the stress strain curve. The further a member is strained, the fewer number of cycles are possible.

QUOTE:
Remember, doubling the allowable GVW will not result in a doubling of total tonnage moving over our highways. We are assuming total aggregate tonnage will only continue to increase at currently predicted trends. Why not actually decrease total aggregate tare tonnage relative to load tonnage?

Again, this is a matter of a stress strain situation.

QUOTE:
We need to get the mid distance and long distance trucks off of the roads and on the rails. The roadrailer system is one of the most efficient means of transportation today. Frankly, the ATA is greedy and is not concerened with who they kill or the additional expenses they thrust on the American people. [:(!]

Whereas the AAR and its minions are not the least bit greedy, have grave concern for who they kill/hospitalize/put on disability, and are deeply concerned about the additional expenses they thrust on the American people?[(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D]

[Anonymous]

ouengr you hit the nail on the head in regards to the longer and heavier trucks. In regards to local distribution centers I think Railroad owned warehouses were once commonplace in the 1950s and 60s. Maybe someone here knows why so many were closed, but my guess would be due to labor costs and things of that nature. In the town of my birth (Eugene Oregon) espee had such a place and now it's an automobile wrecking yard. I agree that railroads need a break in fuel and property taxes as long as it's being used to lay tracks, buy locos and rolling stock as well as train personell.
As far as the capacity issue my big idea was equall parts wishfull thinking and attempting to be practical minded without knowing all the geographical specifics of the ROWs in question.

[Anonymous]

Labor Costs?

I see that pallet that is 40 inches by 48 inches inside the trailer and was told by a very old driver one time; that the pallet is the reason for the reduced labor requirements.

The way I heard it:

Boys and strong young men worked in the warehouses by the dozen moving everything mostly by hand until the mid 60's This was particularly true for provisions going onto shipping at the sea.

When pallets were placed into service it was not long before one person can stack em and load em into a truck or a boxcar at the same facility. It wasnt long before they did not need as many strong people to do the same day's labor.

That is the way I heard it, I may be totally off track but I see pallets as a very good labor saving tool.

Just dont get me started all over again on unpacking "Big wood" and restacking onto "Small wood" cargo that is being delivered into the reciever. Or the day someone discovered that cardboard sheets are cheaper than actual pallets.

Then there are pallets that needs to be shipped west at 8.00 each in value becuase the woods they use for them are not plentiful out there.

[Anonymous]

ouengr - For the umteenth time, HOW IS IT THAT CANADIAN ROADS AND BRIDGES CAN HANDLE HEAVIER TRUCKS? I guess the principles of physics you extoll are somehow different up there. Not to mention that some US states (mostly in the West) allow heavier loads.

Yes, we all know about how point of pressure is conveyed down through the subgrade. This is why truck trailer wheelsets usually come in axle sets of twos and threes with a certain amount of space between to allow for "springback". The point you are neglecting is that two and three axle set weight standards would remain the same or be reduced with an increased GVW.

If we really want to get technical, it is entirely possible for trucks to be run "train-style" in multiple trailers, with the total number of such trailers limited only by the abiltity of the tractor unit to pull them and the ability of the road parameters to allow the train set to remain in its lane around curves. That's why it is ridiculous not to allow loaded 20' containers to run in b-train configurations in the US, just like they currently do in much of Canada. But the GVW limits of 105k in most of the West is not sufficient to allow two 50k 20's to be run this way. For such b-train configs, we need at least 135k GVW (2 x 50k lbs, + 15k lbs for cab unit with idlers, + 2 x 10k lbs per tridem chassis with idlers). With air suspension adjustments, the max per axle group is 45k lbs per tridem, 35k for the tandem driving set, 6k per idler, and 9k for the steering set. Thus we have 152k theoretical max capacity for all 135k. In other words, it makes no negative physical difference to the roadway (pavement plus subgrade) if the pasage of axle groups runs 9k + 41k + 51k + wait a milisecond, and again + 9k + 41k + 51k (the equivalent of two separate trucks each pulling a loaded 20' container with idlers and tridem chassis), OR 9k + 41k + 51k + 51k (which would be one truck pulling two loaded 20' containers in b-train formation).

Question: Which way results in less road/subgrade/bridge deterioration for hauling those two loaded 20' containers? Obviously, it is the b-train formation, which although is carrying a GVW of 135k, has less total axle sets passing over the roadways, and with less tare in doing so.

And just for the record, a city to town having a railroad connection is not guarantee of the type of service the economy depends on. In fact, in most such towns and cities the railroad means diddly squat in relation to the local economy. Railroads are loathe to provide carload service without a massive yard somewhere within the pulling distance of a local, and they seem to perfer their massive yards to be few and far between.

And to top it off, now you're blaming road drivers for all train accidents, even if a road vehicle wasn't involved? So all derailments are caused by road vehicles? C'mom now!

dsktc - So you're saying population density is homogenously spread out over each country? What if I told you the population density of most Western US states is less than the population density of those Canadian provinces where heavier trucks are allowed? Your apples vs oranges analogy is not apt, because the apple barrel happens to contain a lot of oranges, and the orange barrel has a whole lot of apples in it.

And you've competely missed the point on the trade deficit/transportation policy dynamic. It's not that foreign countries are freindlier that the US for industrial production (which may or may not be true), but that transportation policies over the US surface favor imports over domestic cargo (for export or domestic markets). The differential pricing structure of railroads has resulted in rates that average 106% of VC in the import intermodal corridors, while averaging over 200% (sometimes as high as 400%) of VC for captive domestic rail shippers. To deny this is just to be purposefully ignorant. The same can be said for the GVW standards, which favor imports (mostly consumer goods, which tend to be lighter per cube) over US exports (which tend to be denser base cargos like ag and forest products). Allowing for higher GVW would obviously improve the transportation dynamics of most US exports, while having no effect on most imports.

All - What is the connection between GVW and LCV standards, and the potential for mismanagement of trucking firms? Are you all suggesting that stricter GVW and LCV standards will result in trucking management that is better behaved? And your proof is what........?

[Anonymous]

There is also a pu***o build an Interstate Highway (I-57) that paralelles the entire CN/IC mainline from the North to the South.

I theorize that some people want to combine that Interstate Highway building project with the 53' and 57' Long Trailers to fully compete with the CN/IC Mainline.

Andrew F.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by falconer

There is also a pu***o build an Interstate Highway (I-57) that paralelles the entire CN/IC mainline from the North to the South.

I theorize that some people want to combine that Interstate Highway building project with the 53' and 57' Long Trailers to fully compete with the CN/IC Mainline.

Andrew F.

Isn't there already an I-57, which hooks into I-55 paralleling the Mississippi River from St. Louis south...following the same route of CN/IC. Why would you build two interstate highways on either side of the river?

[edbenton]

I 57 takes you down thru eastern IL by champaign urbana and is actually a short cut to memphis out of chicago.

[Anonymous]

Yea, I-57 parallels CN/IC through Illinois.

But I'm still not sold on this whole idea though. [|)]

[Anonymous]

Canadian roads have frost laws dont they? I dimly remember some rules about winter operations up north and am surprised no one has said anything to date regarding permafrost or similar.

Ive seen the big Bear Paper Mill in Virginia get served by train, they had two large siding/docks with about 12 cars on each track being loading and pulled out of there by a industrial switcher. But we still had oodles of truckers loading for Dow Jones in Des Moines IA and similar printing operations. That rail car cannot get from Central VA to IA in the time a team can get it there.

Another thing that really bothers me about cargo scheduling. Why is it "OK" for a train to sit up to a week on the old Missouri Pacific Main in my area loaded while it is not ok for a trucker to sleep?

There are certain vehicles in the USA that are configured like B trains in Michigan (Always wanted to drive one but never did get chance) and Turnpike Doubles in Mass and the Midwest. Those are handled pretty strictly by special areas at each exit where trailers are hooked or unhooked for single running off the turnpike system.

If I remember correctly there are some coal trucks and intermodal who routinely exceed 80,000 gvw under permit during service around the United States. I remember a few intermodal loads that were like 135,000 gross on a U model mack and a 40 foot chassis box. Believe me it is HEAVY.

[Anonymous]

Gee, Dave.

I never said any such thing about
population density.

Either you are a shrill for the trucking industry
or you have lived in an Ivory Tower for too long.

Once again, you are making a faith-based
assertion about higher GVW aiding U.S.
exporters without supplying a single fact
to support that claim.

Dave

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

dsktc - So you're saying population density is homogenously spread out over each country? What if I told you the population density of most Western US states is less than the population density of those Canadian provinces where heavier trucks are allowed? Your apples vs oranges analogy is not apt, because the apple barrel happens to contain a lot of oranges, and the orange barrel has a whole lot of apples in it.

And you've competely missed the point on the trade deficit/transportation policy dynamic. It's not that foreign countries are freindlier that the US for industrial production (which may or may not be true), but that transportation policies over the US surface favor imports over domestic cargo (for export or domestic markets). The differential pricing structure of railroads has resulted in rates that average 106% of VC in the import intermodal corridors, while averaging over 200% (sometimes as high as 400%) of VC for captive domestic rail shippers. To deny this is just to be purposefully ignorant. The same can be said for the GVW standards, which favor imports (mostly consumer goods, which tend to be lighter per cube) over US exports (which tend to be denser base cargos like ag and forest products). Allowing for higher GVW would obviously improve the transportation dynamics of most US exports, while having no effect on most imports.

All - What is the connection between GVW and LCV standards, and the potential for mismanagement of trucking firms? Are you all suggesting that stricter GVW and LCV standards will result in trucking management that is better behaved? And your proof is what........?

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

FM seems to be blissfully unaware of the Law Of Unintended Consequences. Super-size trucks and open access may look great on paper and standing by themselves, but both of them have to interact with the rest of the real world and those interactions also have to be considered before any action is taken.

[edbenton]

Saftey valve you are right on the sleep issue. For 3 months til the company eliminated the reginal runnin I had a run W Chicago to about 90 mins east of Memphis. Unload there go to Coors get a load of beer go W chicago and drop and go. The worst part was I was Always tired and on the run I eventually got to the point were I was able to get ahead and sleep at the Hamburger places. I carried alot of bull patties during that time. I hope Mc Donalds was happy with my service.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

FM seems to be blissfully unaware of the Law Of Unintended Consequences.

it's informally called the Staggers Act, and I think FM is aware of it.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[edbenton]

I wish old Highiron2003 was still posting he would have a blast with this thread. With all the old truckers who are railfans on this site.

[Anonymous]

It appears that most of the north-south 4 lane Interstate Highways are candidates for extension from the northern U.S Border to the Southern U.S. Border.

These Longer Trailers make the push for extending all Highways and Interstates much stronger.

The bigger trailers are leverage for more Interstate Highways that simply cut apart everyone's land instead of simply having elevated roadways or subterranian roadways.

It makes farming even harder.

Who needs more corn and alfalfa when there are bigger trailers to move on bigger Highways.

Andrew F.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
I will disagree there. First of all, there are the two different aspects being proposed; higher GVW and longer LCV's. On the weight front, that will definately favor US ag and natural resource producers in getting product from farm/forest/mile etc. to the nearest rail terminal. On the length front, longer trailer combinations will be of great aid to UPS and other LCL carriers for domestic light bulky loads. Neither will be of aid to overseas importers, who will still depend on their US railroad allys to get them containerloads of crap to the inner city masses.

Not to be picky here, but only to clarify for others. LCL is a railroad term, the trucking term is LTL, which for those that might wonder stands for "LESS then TRAILER LOAD." Also, for those asking what LCV stands for, its "LONGER COMBINATION VEHICLES." And applies to permitted movements of these combinations in the states that they operate.

As an example Nevada allows doubles (truck-tractor, trailer,con-gear, trailer) up to 70 feet over-all but not triples (truck-tractor, trailer, con-gear, trailer, con-gear, trailer) except by special over length permit.

LCVs for the most part are not semi-trailer truck-tractor combinations (truck-tractor, trailer) but are combinations such as "Rocky Mountain Sets" (truck-tractor, 45 or 48 foot trailer, con-gear, 28 foot trailer or reverse order on trailers), "Turn Pike doubles" (truck-tractor, 45 or 48 foot trailer, con-gear, 45 or 48 foot trailer) or "Triples" (truck-tractor, trailer, con-gear, trailer, con-gear, trailer). There are many other variations, but these are the most common LCVs.

A triples set:



Jimmy B

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by chicagorails

more wear n tear to the allready rough roads. higher taxes
takes longer for heavier trucks to stop. more accidents.
are they not long enough? 40 ft. then 48 ft. then 53 ft. and 57 feet long !!
good news for traffic light manufacters. i couldnt make the corner , boss!!
makem bigger longer wider taller heavier, the rails can handle em,boys.!!

For most states the easy answer is "triples," hang another trailer on the end and it will not add to wear and tear on the highways, and this LCV is much more able to get from the interstate to the shipper, consignee or terminal than other types of LCVs without the side damage you mention. And by-the-way, here in Nevada, if you're driving one of the LCVs and you cause damage like what you mention, the company is responsible.

Here is the tractor I drive with a LCV set:



Jimmy "B"

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dblstack

Kurn - what a well reasoned, insightful and un-emotional response. Thank you for that. Do you have any actual data on how many owner operators are employed by the "big guys?" The answer is many thousands are employed by each of the top 3 truckload carriers. Can you explain why Schneider, Swift, etc would be in favor of high turnover? Lets see.... it costs nearly $10,000 per driver to recruit a replacment .... yeah .... high turn over.... that makes good economic sense..... I'm gonna push for that!!

Are you aware of any of the actual data on what some of the big carriers have done with driver wages and time at home in the last few years? More money and more time at home - those dirty so -and -so's......

To answer your question, for the past 10 years or more these "TL" (Truck Load) carriers have refused to raise wages in order to secure drivers. They spend many dollars in recruitment, but none on wages.

The average wage of a "TL" trucker is about $34,000 bucks a year, its been static for at least 13 years now, the same union trucker is now at about $60,000 to $90,000 bucks a year.

We hear all about supply and demand in a "Capitalist" economy, if this was true, non union wages would be at about 80 percent of union wages. It's not, these huge non-union carriers have a different agenda, its exploitation. Use them, burn them, get them moving to another low paid TL job.

Jimmy "B"

[Anonymous]

this might be a dumb question, but how does a driver back up those doubles and triples any appreciable distance without the trailers going every which-way?

[Anonymous]

Practice... lots of practice. Actually, it's not that hard to disconnect a trailer (or two of them) and back one trailer in. It takes a lot of cranking to drop the landing gear (not neccessary on the number two and three trailers) disconnect the air hoses, electrical connection, yank the fifth wheel release bar and sloooowly pull away. Then you can put up with observing the betting action going on on the dock as you back in.

Erik

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by equinox

this might be a dumb question, but how does a driver back up those doubles and triples any appreciable distance without the trailers going every which-way?

Trucking is a pull ahead industry. Most times when you have arrived at the destination its drop and hook untill everything is spotted. But, there are exceptions. At Fernley, NV and the MSC distribution center, there was a UPS guy on the Southern California pull, that always, without breaking his set of doubles, would back his rear box to the dock at MSC for the Southern California pull off.

At our barn, there are two that can smartly back the rear box of a set of doubles to a spot, without breaking the set. Me, I've backed a set out of a dead end situations a number of times.

Triples, never seen or heard of anyone doing that...

Jimmy B

[edbenton]

Sp9033 I was an OTR driver hee for a nonunion company and I made on avarge 45 grand a year of course I also ran my butt off but I did make good money. The trouble with the large fleets is they will do anything they have to so they can get the contract. I worked for Henderson Trucking as my last company. I loved their policy about a driver duties it is get the load there if the reciver tells you to unload ti hire a lumper. In everyone of their contracts it states all unloading costs will be payed by the reciver of the goods. They made my job easy I could run all night to get that floor load there and then catch some real good sleep while the lumpers unloaded that 4000 cases of frozen dinners,

[ouengr]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

ouengr - For the umteenth time, HOW IS IT THAT CANADIAN ROADS AND BRIDGES CAN HANDLE HEAVIER TRUCKS? I guess the principles of physics you extoll are somehow different up there. Not to mention that some US states (mostly in the West) allow heavier loads.

Do you understand the concept of different design standards? The physics are the same the design requirements vary.

[quote}
Yes, we all know about how point of pressure is conveyed down through the subgrade. This is why truck trailer wheelsets usually come in axle sets of twos and threes with a certain amount of space between to allow for "springback". The point you are neglecting is that two and three axle set weight standards would remain the same or be reduced with an increased GVW.
[\quote}

No, way. This is absolute nonsense. There is no way that axles will be added to distribute the same load over a larger area. This adds weight and drag to the load. This will simply not happen. If axles are added it will be to increase the total load on the vehicle. This will result in increased stress on the pavement and bridges.

QUOTE:
If we really want to get technical, it is entirely possible for trucks to be run "train-style" in multiple trailers, with the total number of such trailers limited only by the abiltity of the tractor unit to pull them and the ability of the road parameters to allow the train set to remain in its lane around curves. That's why it is ridiculous not to allow loaded 20' containers to run in b-train configurations in the US, just like they currently do in much of Canada. But the GVW limits of 105k in most of the West is not sufficient to allow two 50k 20's to be run this way. For such b-train configs, we need at least 135k GVW (2 x 50k lbs, + 15k lbs for cab unit with idlers, + 2 x 10k lbs per tridem chassis with idlers). With air suspension adjustments, the max per axle group is 45k lbs per tridem, 35k for the tandem driving set, 6k per idler, and 9k for the steering set. Thus we have 152k theoretical max capacity for all 135k. In other words, it makes no negative physical difference to the roadway (pavement plus subgrade) if the pasage of axle groups runs 9k + 41k + 51k + wait a milisecond, and again + 9k + 41k + 51k (the equivalent of two separate trucks each pulling a loaded 20' container with idlers and tridem chassis), OR 9k + 41k + 51k + 51k (which would be one truck pulling two loaded 20' containers in b-train formation).

Your physics are simply wrong. Rarely will you have two trucks pass over the same stretch of road in such close proximity.

There is also a problem with controlling a vehicle this large. A vehicle of this configuration is very unstable and can lead to very nasty accidents in the wrong conditions. In the US, we have far more cars on the system per lane mile than does Canada. The use and purpose of the system is different. If you want to make it far too dangerous for passenger vehicles, then continue down this path. Otherwise we need to look at other transporation aleternatives included the rails. If you want to build suicidal roller dearby deathways for your load em up to what ever weight and whatever configuartion then have the trucking industry build them with their own money and pay to maintain them. To destroy the interstate highway system to gain a percieved benefit is reckless and irresponcible.

Question: Which way results in less road/subgrade/bridge deterioration for hauling those two loaded 20' containers? Obviously, it is the b-train formation, which although is carrying a GVW of 135k, has less total axle sets passing over the roadways, and with less tare in doing so.

And just for the record, a city to town having a railroad connection is not guarantee of the type of service the economy depends on. In fact, in most such towns and cities the railroad means diddly squat in relation to the local economy. Railroads are loathe to provide carload service without a massive yard somewhere within the pulling distance of a local, and they seem to perfer their massive yards to be few and far between.
[\quote]

You are a nut. Many local industries are still served by the local railroads. Just becasue you don't see it does not mean that it does not happen. Yes, many of the class ones have moved away from single car deliveries, but many shortline still carry this services and I know of several that handle the local switching for the class ones.

And to top it off, now you're blaming road drivers for all train accidents, even if a road vehicle wasn't involved? So all derailments are caused by road vehicles? C'mom now!
[\quote]

YES, when it is a car involved in a collision with a train at a crossing, it is nearly always the roadway vehicles fault. [:(!]

Current laws REQUIRE roadway vehicles to yield right of way to trains. When this does not happen and it results in a collision, then the driver is responcible.

My comments was addressing grade crossing incidents. Only on extremely rare occasions will a derailment cause injurry to an individual in a passenger car who is not involved in a grade crossing incident.

One final set of questions for you.

Why are you asking questions about increasing the size and weight of trucks on a railroad forum? This seems a little strange to me. Are you perhaps engaging in oppositional research? I am willing to debate you either way, but I want to know who I am dealing with. If you are a trucking lobbyist then I will not be able to change your mind unless I hire you. I do not want to waste my time attempting to challenge the position of the trucking industry. I will let ASCE or others groups deal with this issue. Please let us know your position in this debate.

• Reply