“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 prod
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.
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.
…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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
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 wil
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!
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 cor