ATA now supports longer and/or heavier trucks

[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. [|)]