Well, I was once employed as Market Research Supervisor by International Harvester (changed to Navistar) when they were the largest heavy duty/medium duty truck manufacturer in North America. So I might just know a thing or two about trucks. Of course, I don’t know as much as you do, but I do know something.
We took a good look at LCVs because we thought they would reduce the demand for tractors, which we built.
If you put a LCV such as a Turnpike Double (twin 53’ trailers behind one tractor) on a curved on ramp going upgrade to access an Interstate…If you do that…then you stop it…which will often happen due to traffic…It’s going to have a very difficult time restarting. If you throw in normal highway conditions such as snow, rain, ice, etc., it’s going have an even more difficult time starting. Blocking traffic is not acceptable.
Current tractor trailers impede traiffic significantly in urban areas such as Chicago. In the normal stop 'n go they take longer to go than autos. This backs up traffic behind them. Make 'em bigger and you’ll make the problem much worse. The may work just fine in most of Canada, or even in Nevada and Utah, but they’ll be a nightmare where a lot of people are driving, such as Chicago, St. Louis and all points east of the Big River.
And a “Supper Truck” load of lettuce from Salinas to New York will go through Chicago. It’s an Interstate hub just like it’s a rail hub. And no one living here needs that additional aggrevation trying to get on home after a day’s work.
Exactly. That’s why I inserted the caveat, “if the only consideration was pavement damage.” The FHWA calculations, if you look at the link I provided, show how MPG affects the cost vs. revenue.
Seriously, they are allowed to a very limited extent on specific routes such as the Indiana Toll Road. They are not allowed to roam the Interstate System. I did not say they weren’t safe. I said they screwed up traffic, and they do.
I have a truck driver freind who reports that many drivers don’t want anything to do with more than one trailer because of the delicate handling problems. I have been on the roads…the super highways…when those trains go by and have seen how the will swerve and not necessarily follow in line at higher speeds (65+); at normal two lane road speeds, 50 or less, they appear ok, but are really pounding the pavement. No, trains on tracks, trucks on roads. Safer that way for all involved.
Large Truck Accident Rates: See http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810989.PDF One out of nine traffic fatalities in 2007 resulted from a collision involving a large truck. Large trucks are involved in fatal accidents about 25% more frequently than if accident rates were strictly proportional to their vehicle-miles traveled.
This does nothing to show that trucks are dangerous, that just shows how many trucks were INVOLVED in accidents, it does not even suggest who was at fault in those accidents. That is akin to saying a high percentage of shooting victims were not armed, so to solve the problem, pass legislation requiring everybody to carry a weapon. On the same logic, it can be asserted that in grade crossing accidents a train or other railway equipment is involved nearly 100% of all grade crossing accidents, the TRAINS must have been at fault.
I have heard for years people say that there should be seperate highways for cars and trucks, the trucks while knowing that will never happen (any time soon anyway) would be more in favor of that than automobile drivers would, it would eliminate one of the biggest risks we face out there everyday. It would be very interesting to see the stasticts after that, I have no doubt which highways would have the fewest accidents per mile driven. You would be seeing automobile drivers trying to use the truck only roads, because they would be SAFER there than driving on the truck prohibitted roads.
Washington state did their own road test many years ago using a set of doubles & a 45 footer with the same gross weights. The doubles did more damage to the roadway. The governor then decided that triples would only encourage the use of single axle bogeys. Triples are still not allowed in Washington.
There are many who would have interpreted it that way. The misperceptions regarding the trucking industry are as great, or greater than the ones involving railroading, likely because people interact even more with trucks, than they do with trains in their daily lives.
As railfans, we have all seen things on TV and in the movies that we know just aren’t reality, as a Professional driver, I see similar mistakes that many railfans and others would watch and not know any better. Both industries are grossly misunderstood in many ways, and I did not want there to be another.
As someone that had driven over 1 million accident free and the SON of someone that had 2 million accident free miles before we were both RETIRED due to medical conditons. I can tell you this. You want to make the trucks pay for their share of the highways they use., Fine then get ready to STARVE to death since a head of lettuce would be over 10 bucks a head bread would be 6 bucks for the cheap stuff hamburger would be around 20 bucks a lb and gas would be about 10 bucks a gallon. Then you say let the RR’s haul it all one small problem there were are they going to get their SPARE parts since they all come in via TRUCKS. Eventually the entire logistics chain in the nation would collaspe due to people like this board that think trucks are EVIL. They carry 60% tonaage wise and about everything to the final point of usage except maybe the coal trains.
Remember this OTR trucking is the lifeblood of the nation and when the RR’s collasped in the 60’s who picked up the slack the TRUCKERS now that the burbs are mad they are there they want them gone sorry not going to happen. As to the LCV issue upping the weight limit if done properly may be a decent idea however do not let the 6 week wonders behind the well of them. Give the guys that have been hauling OTR for years the first chance they are not the easiest things to haul when they start to wiggle they can tip you fast. Also remember that LCV and larger trailers will not FIT in most of the eastern cities I for one would NOT want to take a 57 footer into Boston or PHILLY at all. Yet that is what will happen if this happens. Best case would be go with a Tridem and 97K GVW with a restriction of a max length of trailer of 53 feet.
The open roads of mid America are not the same as commuter congested turnpikes and fourlanes of metropolitan areas. But, yes, there are bad automobile drivers who cause accidents with law abiding trucks. The flip side is that there are bad truck drivers who cause accidents. I have driven quite a bit in the east on two and four lane roads, and heavy truck traffic causes problems in populated areas. The real truck problem is not because of bad driving skills but overweight trailers, fatigued drivers, lack of properly filled out logs; but thats not to say there are quite a few “cowboys” out there, too. Ironically, an autombile driver can go 12, 15, how many hours and not be penelized? while a truck driver gets smacked over 10 or 12. That should be made equal. I know truck drivers, railroaders, police officers and justices of the peace: the most often problem is the handful of truck drivers who are somehow skirting the laws or trying to get an extra pound or extra run for the day. But most truck drivers know the speed limits, the best way of conserving fuel, keep their logs, and don’t let others drive them.
I will not disagree that the costs of goods would go up, whether or not it would be as much as your figures. But all too often in the past decades I have heard truckers complaining about having to compete with the “subsidized” railroads.
I recognise the reality is that much of our transportation system, and especially for food, has become heavily weighted towards trucking and this is unlikely to change any time soon. This shift to trucking is in part railroad management’s fault, when they decided to de-market a lot of the transportation services formerly provided. But it was not entirely their fault, since the rigid regulation imposed by the ICC no doubt made a lot of business lines uneconomic, and full crew laws meant labor costs were high. Imagine if your state required three men in the truck, like some states used to require a 6-man crew on a freight train. The so-called collapse of the railroads in the 60’s was the result of loss of freight business to trucks, with what was left being less than the critical mass required to sustain operations, especially on branchlines. But again, regulators forced the railroads to keep operating them at a loss.
And yes, I know the railroads do use trucks for some of their own hauling, including spare parts, and I think that is a very sad commentary on the management. The problem is the timely need for the goods, and rather than fix the systemic problems (which would benefit all shippers) they “paper over the cracks” and use trucks themselves.
John
[quote user=“edbenton”]
As someone that had driven over 1 million accident free and the SON of someone that had 2 million accident free miles before we were both RETIRED due to medical conditons. I can tell you this. You want to make the trucks pay for their share of the highways they use., Fine then get ready to STARVE to death since a head of lettuce would be over 10 bucks a head bread would be 6 bucks f
Every business and every one of us is subsidized to a high degree…
Sure…trucking is subsidized too…however not unfairly. After all…we all benefit from the fast, flexible, and relatively cheap transportation network that trucking provides. The “subsidy” that we truckers get really flows though to every shipper and every consumer. So to suggest we get an unfair helping of tax dollars because we aren’t directly paying the 3000 dollars a gallon in fuel tax needed to maintain roads is just plain silly.
Society decided long ago that it wants the speed and flexibility that trucking provides. Furthermore, society wants that transportation cheaply so that every shipper can sell his or her wares to pretty much any consumer in North america at affordable prices. Whether that “societal want” is right or wrong in light of our current knowlege of renewable resources and environmental sustainability is another matter. But my point is that we truckers aren’t benefitting from subsidies becuase those benefits flow through to our customers and to consumers in general (and maybe that’s as it should be).
Well, I think Ulrich is a pretty sharp guy. He usually provides good insight and perspective. But he’s way way wrong here.
“Every business and every one of us is subsidized to a high degree” is simply not possible. Somebody has to make the money. “Making Money” is a great term. It litterally means creating wealth. And without that creation we’d all be grubbing in the dirt and expiring at 28 after a miserable life spent in total ignorance.
Everybody can’t get a subsidy because if they did there would be no one to create the money (wealth) needed to provide the subsidy. I mean the dang government has to have someone to take it away from before they can give it to someone else. (It’s basically legalized theft.)
Of course a small handfull of drivers are ruining it all, for everything shared. But there will always be those. Maybe even me if I temporarily reluctantly need a job badly and they need truckers in bigger trucks (it’s not something I want to do) jeroneemoooooo… hahaha.
But seriously society has to set a standard. Bigger trucks in open slaces and smaller trucks in tight spaces. How hard is that? OK if your the federal government you can’t care about these differences and one size fits all…
Greyhounds…good observation and perhaps I’m using the term subsidized incorrectly. What I mean is that all of us, to a large degree, benefit from the input of others…and that input may be in terms of tax dollars or through some other mechanism. For example…the trucking industry is subsidized…no doubt about it. However, does that mean that those of us in the industry don’t create wealth and that the industry is an overall draw on resources? I don’t think so. Society via the democratic process has decided on the setup in which the industry operates because society wants the industry and that type of flexible transportation at affordable prices. When I stated that we’re all subsidized I meant to point out that we all (well most of us who are employed anyway) create VALUE and wealth in one area while accepting a subsidy (direct or indirect) in another. For example, lets say you drive to and from work every day… the roads you use are to some extent paid for by others…and your tax dollars may or mat not pay your “fair share”. Look at artists…I know of one or two who create fantastic VALUE yet can’t seem to make enough money to pay their bills…so they collect welfare to survive. On the one hand they create value while on the other they are subsidized. Overall I believe the verdict is still out as to whether the subsidies we require outstrip the wealth that we as a socirty create. I believe that as a society we taking far more out than putting back…hence the huge and growing debt problem and dwindling resources on which to draw upon.
Well, I’m going to respond to this because I think it’s important. Some people throw the word “subsidy” around very loosely. Recently a Trains editor embarrassed himself by proclaiming that the railroads have established cross subsidies amongst their customers. They haven’t. It would be foolish for them to do so. It’s also an
But the fact that a subsidy is even considered and then established means that someone realizes that there is a value to that service. For instance, the public doesn’t respond (i.e., doesn’t understnd, doen’t get it explained to them) to a track being maintained into a power plant so it can recieve coal to operate. The alternative is to build heavier local roads and run trucks day and night but they can’t comprehend what that really means either. So the solons foot the bill to maintain a railroad track so that they don’t have to build and maintian the roads and so that there is a 24 hour parade of trucks through the neighborhood. Public (society) doesn’t seem to give a damn and do not put value on anything, but someone…either the railroad or the utility, in this case, even the town government…realizes the problems and that the solution is to subsidize the railraod. This happens very often. The public is all too often ignorant, and kept ignorant, of these matters,…well, reasons for that are another tirade not needed here…