Trucking industry wants heavier, longer than ‘53 trailers

Trains Magazine General Discussion
1

A bill in Congress proposes to increase the maximum weight of trailers from 80,000 pounds to 97,000. Possibly such trailers could be longer than 53 ft, which I guess would be ‘60. And ‘60 trailers would affect railroads too since they would need new intermodal spine-cars to accommodate the longer trailers. IIRC, the longest spine cars currently in use are ‘57. Not to mention if this new proposal is adopted domestic stack containers could be beyond 53’ too.

Of course there’s opposition to this proposal by some members of Congress, so who knows how far this legislation will go since it would have to go through the Senate too.

http://articles.philly.com/2011-05-15/business/29545977_1_bigger-trucks-heavier-trucks-monster-trucks

May 15, 2011|By Paul Nussbaum, Inquirer Staff Writer

A battle is brewing in Congress over allowing heavier and longer trucks on U.S. interstate highways, with some lawmakers from New Jersey and Pennsylvania on opposite sides of the debate.

As Congress inches toward a vote on a new transportation-funding law this year, both supporters and opponents of bigger trucks are lobbying to make their position part of the final bill.

The proposals for bigger trucks are supported by the American Trucking Associations and some industry and shipping groups, and they are opposed by the railroad industry, the American Automobile Association, and the Teamsters union.

Currently, federal law bans fully loaded trucks heavier than 80,000 pounds and longer than 53 feet from most interstate highways.

The American Trucking Associations is seeking to permit states to increase that maximum weight to 97,000 pounds. The proposal would require the heavier trucks to have six axles, up from the c

2

The trucking industry certainly isn’t unanimous on this issue. Bigger trucks mean bigger headaches as far as getting around tight areas, and that’s assuming one can find drivers who are sufficiently qualifed to operate them. Long combination vehicles are used in some areas; however; here again there are numerous restrictions as to when, where, and how they may be operated. Personally I like the super B combination…they track and handle better than a conventional tractor trailer… they are the perfect fit for what I do (steel)…would run only super B’s if I could get away with it.

3

If they permit longer and heavier combo, multi trailer rigs will the be adding a additional brakeman and a two-way EOT requirement?[:D]

4

And has the trucking industry indicated how they plan to reimburse the states for the cost of upgrading bridges and roadbeds to handle the greater weights? We car drivers don’t need the upgrade, so why should these costs come out of general revenues?

There are benefits to the trucking industry every time weight and size limits are raised, and it is only fair that those who benefit should be solely responsible for the necessary costs. But just maybe the economics are only favorable when somebody else picks up the tab…

John

5

Taxes paid by you and me and everyone else who benefits from a more efficient transportation industry…

6

Just as long as the trucking industry supports similar upgrades to the railroads out of general tax revenues. The railroads similarly pay fuel taxes, as well as a number of other taxes the truckers don’t, such as property tax.

I won’t disagree that there are advantages to a more efficient transportation industry, but the problem comes in how we measure “efficiency”. I can take a load of junk to the dump in my pickup truck, making two or three trips to do it. I can also go out and buy a 5-ton truck to do it in one load. I have now saved 3 gallons of gas and a couple of hours, and it only cost $30,000. If somebody else is paying for the truck I will choose the “efficient” way and use the big one. If I have to use my own money to buy, or even rent, the truck I will most likely use my little one and make the extra trips. Less efficient, but more cost effective. (Exaggerated analogy, but in general that is why trucking has bec

7

If they want to run longer, heavier equipment, let them pay for a special permit for each move. That way, there will be enough money in the till to repair at least some of the damage to pavement that wasn’t designed for the heavier loads.

As far as multiple-trailer rigs, if they want to run trains, put them on rails.

Do we really want `efficiency’ at the expense of squeezing independent owner-drivers out of the over-the-road freight business?

I will reserve my comments about sharing the road with rubber-tired trains as seen through the eyes of a four-wheeler pilot. The site’s anti-profanity checker wouldn’t like them.

Chuck

8

[quote user=“cx500”]

Ulrich:

cx500:

And has the trucking industry indicated how they plan to reimburse the states for the cost of upgrading bridges and roadbeds to handle the greater weights? We car drivers don’t need the upgrade, so why should these costs come out of general revenues?

There are benefits to the trucking industry every time weight and size limits are raised, and it is only fair that those who benefit should be solely responsible for the necessary costs. But just maybe the economics are only favorable when somebody else picks up the tab…

John

Taxes paid by you and me and everyone else who benefits from a more efficient transportation industry…

Just as long as the trucking industry supports similar upgrades to the railroads out of general tax revenues. The railroads similarly pay fuel taxes, as well as a number of other taxes the truckers don’t, such as property tax.

I won’t disagree that there are advantages to a more efficient transportation industry, but the problem comes in how we measure “efficiency”. I can take a load of junk to the dump in my pickup truck, making two or three trips to do it. I can also go out and buy a 5-ton truck to do it in one load. I have now saved 3 gallons of gas and a couple of hours, and it only cost $30,000. If somebody else is paying for the truck I will choose the “efficient” way and use the big one. If I have to use my own money to buy, or even rent, the truck I will most likely use my little one and

10

John - that seems like a pretty good analogy to me ! Thanks for thinking it up and posting it.

Basic principle of economic efficiency - and it seems we’re pretty close to agreement on this application of it: Costs incurred should be initially borne by those most directly responsible for them, and then let them pass those costs onto their customers - and a reasonably competitive economic system will next sort out what, who, and which is most efficient, and who bears what proportion of those costs.

In this context - and greatly simplified: the additional road construction, damage, and maintenance costs due to heavier trucks should be paid for by the truckers - they then have an incentive to minimize those costs, too, such as by using more tires or trucks, etc. The truckers can then charge their customers accordingly, or more likely, pass through the savings - there must be a benefit, otherwise why do it ? Those customers can then take that option into account when making their purchasing and transportation decisions. And yes - sooner or later, the effect of those costs does reach the ultimate consumer, usually like you and me - and that’s OK, because everyone along the way has been subject to the competitive incentive to minimize those costs. But what shouldn’t be done is to saddle the consumer directly with those costs in the form of higher general taxes to pay for road repairs, and skip over the intermediaries in the logistics chain of the trucker, the trucker’s customer, and their customer, and so on. Then the taxpayer has the burden, and no none else has any incentive or exposure to those higher costs - to them, it’s just a free benefit - and the taxpayer has no assurance of a benefit to be received, or even the ‘check-and-balance’ of competition to keep those costs in line.

Here in Pennsylvania, it took a long t

11

I can remember a time in the recent past when 57-foot trailers were tried, not sure if it was meant as an experiment or not. At any rate, it was found that they were too long for most surface street (non-freeway) situations; they couldn’t get around a lot of intersections.

12

[:-^] Being retired from trucking I now can see an ever wideing " swamp" of regulations and lawsuits ahead. ~~ Good luck to all involved in this swamp.

Retired and lovin’ it . Cannonball

13

It is interesting to see who is against this idea this time: some truckers, some drivers, some union people, highway safety people, and some highway planners, besides the usual railroaders. Having driven Routes 80 and 81 last night through PA in the rain watching the trouble the double trailers were having, I have to be careful about bigger and heavier loads…and I think the powers that be are beginning see it the same way: there has to be a more coordinated, rationalized, and universal approach to transportation than just one mode. Even politicians are starting to get the message.

14

Exactly…that pretty much sums it up. A more rationalized approach instead of various interest groups pushing their agendas would a great start…

15

One aspect of longer and heavier trucks and safety that seems to be overlooked, rather conveniently, is the issue of braking and stopping distance. As the weight increases, given the same speed, the distance it takes that rig to stop or slow down for other vehicles or traffic signals increases. If that enhances safety, I’d like to see how.

16

drove a double once 200 miles …never aagain. Same for a double as well. Real easy to jacknife a double if brakes slammed on. back trailer applys later much like a RR train.

17

If you google the subject you’ll find it’s not really overlooked. Lots of studies to show stopping distance increase with weight and speed travelled…In fact safety is a legitimate concern that has been a key factor in maintaining the current 80K tractor trailer configuration. Larger vehicles have thus far seen limited use where their proponents have been able to show that these safety issues don’t come into play given the lanes they run and restricted operating conditions.

18

The issue of braking ability was addressed last year, new stopping distance requirements are scheduled to go into effect in June, 60 to 0 distance is supposed to be reduced to 250 feet (I think). This is to be handled by larger drum brakes or new disc brakes.

If we go to 97,000lbs, there is supposed to be a 6th axle added to the trailer, but that opens up another can of worms. Anyone who has seen a spread-axle trailer negotiate a tight turn, knows that the tires take a beating. The only way in my eyes around this is by making the third axle liftable, to reduce wear.

Talked with some of our management about it some time back, they are not crazy about the idea, many unanswered questions, and money is an issue.

It is a pain now getting a 53-footer in many places in the eastern half of the country, 57-footers just will not work…

The above is the viewpoint from my semi, yours may vary…

19

We run multi axles up here…I agree about the lift axles. It was tried here and rejected after it was found that they beat up the roads too much. Furthermore, lift axles area real pain when they don’t lift like they’re supposed to…that seemed to be a common complaint. Tridems and quads maybe… As I do mostly flatbed I’m sold on the B-train…they track really well, can haul weight…and you’ve got 16 wheels spread out under

20

How are they going to turn the corner with longer trailers at most intersections without hitting poles or smashing automobiles? The 53’ Trailers are not easy to negotiate at many intersections. Longer trailers would have to be restricted.

Andrew