ATA now supports longer and/or heavier trucks

[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." [:)]

[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 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]

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 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.

[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 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?

[Anonymous]

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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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. [:(!]

[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.

[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?

[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]

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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

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.

[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 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 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]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.!!