ATA now supports longer and/or heavier trucks

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edbenton

QUOTE: Originally posted by farmer03

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

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

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

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

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

[edbenton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by farmer03

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

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

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

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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

[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.

[Modelcar]

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

[Anonymous]

[tdn]

[MJ4562]

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

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ndbprr

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

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

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

[ndbprr]

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

[Anonymous]

From the Railway Age news website:

http://www.railwayage.com/breaking_news.shtml

"The board of directors of the American Trucking Associations has voted to support legislation in Congress that would open highways to heavier and longer truck-trailer combinations."

Now, before pro-railroad fans get all hyped about this, stop and think for a moment:

For what possible reason would Class I railroads continue to oppose increased weight and length limits for trucks?

After all, railroads are almost completely dependent on trucks to get the goods to and/or from the railhead. How does limiting the ability to trucks to participate in the multimodal supply chain favor railroads in any way? Are there still Neanderthals out there who believe that trucks are primarily competition for mainline railroads, and not supplementation to railroads?

Granted, increased truck weights could negatively affect some shortlines, and there may be some minimal effect on railroads which compete with truck/barge combinations, but run of the mill long haul railroads? No way. Even if trucking companies are allowed to run triple trailers or 160k GVW loads over most of the Interstate Highway system, that is still barely a dent in the railroad efficiency advantage. Conversely, such increases would allow for greater supply chain efficiencies, which enables the continued growth of the economy, which in turn is the main driver for the current railroad business upturn. As long as per axle weight limits remain consistent (or are actually lowered for heavier trucks), an increase in GVW will not have any more negative effects on highway damage, and on a per unit of cargo perspective, will actually result in less road damage because the increase in load factor is greater than any ostensible increase in road damage.

The main reason most Americans should actually support such highway weight and length increases is that such favors domestic production, while having a benign effect on imports. We have a trade deficit folks, and part of the blame lies with transportation policies that favor imports over domestic production. After some form of federally mandated intramodal rail competition, this increase in highway weights and lengths is the second best way to ameliorate US transportation system contributions to the trade deficit.