# Bill to raise Truck weights to 97,000 lbs is insane.



## Missourian (Apr 21, 2011)

> *Senators Introduce Bill to Boost Truck Weights
> 
> *
> 
> ...


Bullcrap.

97,000 lbs is too heavy,  it's not safe and will destroy roadways and interstates.

80,000 is all the trucks brakes and road surface can handle.

Call or email your Senators to vote against S. 747.


----------



## Missourian (Apr 21, 2011)

> WASHINGTON, April 20, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- American voters say they are overwhelmingly opposed to allowing bigger, heavier trucks on our nation's highways, according to a national survey released today.  Conducted by Hart Research Associates on behalf of the Coalition Against Bigger Trucks (CABT), the survey found public opinion is strongly against proposals being pushed by some large trucking companies asking Congress to raise the national cap on truck size by 20 percent to 97,000 pounds from the current limit of 80,000 pounds.
> 
> 
> The survey found that voters "overwhelmingly and consistently oppose allowing bigger, heavier trucks on American highways," with nearly three quarters, or 72 percent, of registered voters opposing such an increase, and half of those surveyed, 49 percent, said that they strongly opposed the idea.  The survey also found that the opposition stems from public concerns about the increased threat of accidents posed by heavier trucks, as well as increased highway damage, added traffic congestion and potential tax hikes to pay for highway damage.
> ...



Americans Say Bigger Trucks Threaten America's Roadways, Greater Taxpayer Burden -- WASHINGTON, April 20, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --


----------



## Missourian (Apr 21, 2011)

> 1 in 9 highway bridges in the U.S. are classified as "structurally deficient," requiring significant maintenance,          rehabilitation or replacement. Is your state doing a good or bad job at maintaining these vital pieces of         infrastructure? Where are these bridges located? *Our interactive map* allows you to map all the          deficient bridges within 10 miles of any U.S. address, view a national report and 51 state reports and a full national          ranking of state bridge condition.


Transportation For America

Check out the interactive map,  it's amazing how many bridges are unsound already.


----------



## whitehall (Apr 21, 2011)

Trucking companies are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Democrats say they are part of the corporate rich and should be taxed to death and diesel prices keep going up while Obama says "get a smaller car if you don't like it". America needs trucks to get the goods delivered and keep the prices down and every time republicans try to give them a break the socialists step in to prevent it.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Apr 21, 2011)

I am rather uneducated on this one. To come up with an opinion I need more information.

A 97,000 pound truck in 2012 will stop in how many feet? 

Is that equal to an 80,000 pound truck in 1980?

Something like that would make or break this one for me. The bridge statistics are a good point against it.


----------



## martybegan (Apr 21, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> I am rather uneducated on this one. To come up with an opinion I need more information.
> 
> A 97,000 pound truck in 2012 will stop in how many feet?
> 
> ...



One also needs to know PSF of the trucks, as this is what affects the roadway. If more tires are added, while you get additional friction effects, the PSF is lowered. 

I would assume these trucks are mostly for long haul, and would be predominant only on the interstates in the middle of the country. a 97,000 truck requires multiple trailers I think, and those are unwieldy in urban situations, requirng depots for break-down when they enter thier destination city.


----------



## Missourian (Apr 21, 2011)

whitehall said:


> Trucking companies are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Democrats say they are part of the corporate rich and should be taxed to death and diesel prices keep going up while Obama says "get a smaller car if you don't like it". America needs trucks to get the goods delivered and keep the prices down and every time republicans try to give them a break the socialists step in to prevent it.




I own trucks and I drive a truck.  

80,000 lbs destroys equipment,  damages the road and reduces fuel mileage by 15%.

An 80,000 lbs truck takes 400 feet to stop at 55 mph.  

That's 100 feet longer than a football field.

Adding 17,000 lbs will increase stopping distance to almost TWO football fields.


Truck drivers oppose this increase.

Owner-operators oppose this increase.

The driving public opposes this increase.







Hauling More Weight Safer More Fuel Efficient &#8211; Says Who&#8220;Supporters of this bill are the Coalition for Transportation Productivity, a group of more than 150 manufacturers and associations. The associations that make up this group are mainly made up of Forestry associations in which for years have tried to get it allowed so they can haul more weight, mainly because they get paid by the weight that they haul. I&#8217;m surprised by the support of this because of so many that are against &#8220;clear cutting&#8221; of timber for paper. But truthfully this is mainly what these associations that support this do.&#8221;

Read more about Hauling More Weight Safer More Fuel Efficient &#8211; Says Who on:
Hauling More Weight Safer More Fuel Efficient &#8211; Says Who​


----------



## Missourian (Apr 21, 2011)

martybegan said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > I am rather uneducated on this one. To come up with an opinion I need more information.
> ...



All shippers will load more product,  every road will be affected.

This is the single trailer weight being increased.  The bill proposes adding a sixth axle.


----------



## Zander (Apr 21, 2011)

Trucks have a 97K GVW limit in the UK- no problems- the world has not ended.

Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden and Finland all allow 120k .......

We are lightweights in the trucking world.


----------



## martybegan (Apr 21, 2011)

Missourian said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...



again, is this for a single trailer or multiples? also the law allows the states to set the limits. I would assume high density crappy infrastructure states like NY would keep the lower limits.

One size fits all regulation makes little sense. One has to adjust to the situation locally in cases like this.


----------



## Missourian (Apr 21, 2011)

martybegan said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...




Single trailer.


----------



## whitehall (Apr 21, 2011)

Something is very fishy about this issue. The DOT has about a thousand hot shot college kids with calculators ready and willing to determine the risks related to breaking distance and weight ratio and there are another thousand federal employees who do nothing else but calculate bridge strength and the potential for road maintenance related to truck weight. More people are probably killed by high school girls texting their boyfriends while driving than heavy trucks. The senate can dump the bill and Obama could veto it. Why worry about it at this stage? Maybe republicans have a good idea?


----------



## Missourian (Apr 21, 2011)

Zander said:


> Trucks have a 97K GVW limit in the UK- no problems- the world has not ended.
> 
> Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden and Finland all allow 120k .......
> 
> We are lightweights in the trucking world.




Trucks are limited to 40-56 mph in those small countries.  

The speed limits in the U.S. for trucks are as high as 80 mph, most states are 70 mph, nearly twice the legal speed limit for trucks in the U.K., Germany,  Sweden,  Denmark of around 40 mph.  

In The Netherlands and Finland the legal speed limit for truck is around 50 mph.

Apples and Oranges.

Speed limits by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


EDIT-  Keep in mind the speed limits at the link are in KPH.  A quick rule of thumb...55 MPH = 88 KPH


----------



## Missourian (Apr 21, 2011)

whitehall said:


> Something is very fishy about this issue. The DOT has about a thousand hot shot college kids with calculators ready and willing to determine the risks related to breaking distance and weight ratio and there are another thousand federal employees who do nothing else but calculate bridge strength and the potential for road maintenance related to truck weight. More people are probably killed by high school girls texting their boyfriends while driving than heavy trucks. The senate can dump the bill and Obama could veto it. Why worry about it at this stage? Maybe republicans have a good idea?




Because I do this for a living and I can tell you without doubt it's not safe to run 97,000 lbs at 70 mph.

Why worry about it?

Because the Senate is considering it...again.

Sticking your head in the sand isn't an option.  

Contact your Congressmen and Senators today and tell them you oppose S. 747 and H.R. 763.

You can send a message quickly and easily here at Public Citizen:Public Citizen | Action Items
​P.S. -  I am a staunch Republican,  that doesn't mean I should not speak out when they are dead wrong.
​


----------



## Zander (Apr 21, 2011)

Missourian said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Trucks have a 97K GVW limit in the UK- no problems- the world has not ended.
> ...



There is no proof that lower truck speed limits are safer. In fact ......Speed limits in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> A 1987 study finds that crash involvement significantly increases when trucks drive much slower than passenger vehicles,[51] suggesting that the difference in speed between passenger vehicles and slower trucks could cause crashes that otherwise may not happen. Furthermore, in a review of available research, the Transportation Research Board (part of the United States National Research Council) states "[no] conclusive evidence could be found to support or reject the use of differential speed limits for passenger cars and heavy trucks" (page 11) and "a strong case cannot be made on empirical grounds in support of or in opposition to differential speed limits" (page 109)


----------



## martybegan (Apr 21, 2011)

Missourian said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > Something is very fishy about this issue. The DOT has about a thousand hot shot college kids with calculators ready and willing to determine the risks related to breaking distance and weight ratio and there are another thousand federal employees who do nothing else but calculate bridge strength and the potential for road maintenance related to truck weight. More people are probably killed by high school girls texting their boyfriends while driving than heavy trucks. The senate can dump the bill and Obama could veto it. Why worry about it at this stage? Maybe republicans have a good idea?
> ...



just to be on the up and up, you are a truck driver, and therefore do have a vested interest in this. however, isnt in the case that if truck weights go up, less trucks would be needed, and therefore this would result in possible less work for individual truckers?

Could self preservation be a motive here for you as well?


----------



## Missourian (Apr 22, 2011)

Zander said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...




I agree with that...at current weights,  split speed limits cause more accidents because they increase the interaction between cars and trucks.  I've seen it for myself in California,  Ohio and Illinois.

But at nearly 100,000 lbs,  the stopping distance at U.S. highway speed become so elongated that a reduction in speed is the only alternative.

I've stopped an 80,000 truck after popping over a small rise at 70 mph to find traffic unexpectedly at a stand still.

The addition of 21% more weight to 97,000 will increase that stopping distance to beyond the ability to bring the vehicle to a halt before impacting the stopped traffic...or school bus...or vehicle turning left.


----------



## Missourian (Apr 22, 2011)

lost my internet connection...posting with my phone...thunderstorm...i'll be back in the am


----------



## hortysir (Apr 22, 2011)

whitehall said:


> Trucking companies are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Democrats say they are part of the corporate rich and should be taxed to death and diesel prices keep going up while Obama says "get a smaller car if you don't like it". America needs trucks to get the goods delivered and keep the prices down and every time republicans try to give them a break the socialists step in to prevent it.


Meanwhile gas prices skyrocket and many companies will have to decrease their fleet.
fewer trucks = bigger loads


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 22, 2011)

Here in the mountainous west, the heavier the load, the harder it is to stop on a long downgrade. And there are many more passes than just Wolf Creek that have long dangerous grades. The drivers have challenges enough with traffic and schedules without literally adding to their load.


----------



## Missourian (Apr 22, 2011)

martybegan said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...




Not likely...the American Trucking Association,  the association the compiles monthly freight tonnage moved by truck,  projects that truck tonnage moved will increase 30% in the next 10 years.

Also,  these increase will mostly only affect bulk raw materials.

Finished products are bulky,  therefore lighter.

They already fill a trailer to capacity without reaching the present maximum gross weight limit.

This regulation is being pushed by lumber mills,  raw chemical manufacturers,  shippers of bulk liquid and powders,  etc.


----------



## Joe Steel (Apr 22, 2011)

Trucks are too big and too heavy already.  We shouldn't allow any increase.  In fact, we should reduce the allowed sizes and weights.  Better yet, put the freight on rails.  Rail transportation is safer and less costly.


----------



## martybegan (Apr 22, 2011)

Missourian said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Apr 22, 2011)

Joe Steel said:


> Trucks are too big and too heavy already.  We shouldn't allow any increase.  In fact, we should reduce the allowed sizes and weights.  Better yet, put the freight on rails.  Rail transportation is safer and less costly.


Rail transportation is safer, more efficient and lest costly...   for runs over 1000 miles or so.
It is also considerably slower.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 22, 2011)

They're talking about allowing 6 axle vehicles nation wide.  It's already being done in states like the Dakotas.  An odd twist according to truckers I've heard call in to the Jason Lewis Show that debated this about 2 months ago is that with an extra axle and that much weight, they stop and handle better than with 5 axles and 75k#.

I know this much, in my 13k# school bus that I used to drive, I had better handling and control than in my car in snow and ice.  And now in a 60 foot Articulated bus with 3 axles and more weight, it is even better.  Yes your stopping distance increases some... that's a given factor of velocity and inertia.

But as for destroying roads, don't forget an extra axle with 4 more tires to displace the road will not significantly increase road damage, if at all.

Just adding in my two bits.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 22, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > Trucks are too big and too heavy already.  We shouldn't allow any increase.  In fact, we should reduce the allowed sizes and weights.  Better yet, put the freight on rails.  Rail transportation is safer and less costly.
> ...


Very true.  CSX is doing a very good job promoting this.  I do think that long distance freight should nearly universally move to rail.  Keep trucks for short hauls when at all possible.  Intermodal is the way of the future.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Apr 22, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...


That's what my company does - we fill trains.

Sometimes, you can't run rail, howeverr - time sensitive shipments, or anything that needs protection from freezing, has to go OTR.


----------



## zzzz (Apr 22, 2011)

I can see the steel industry liking this. The steel coils they load can be bigger and reduce the number of trucks needed by almost 20%. The problem and this I have witnessed is that the retaining systems for these coils will need to be strengthened considerably. I've seen trucks loose their coils and that my friends is very dangerous. A large steel coil bouncing down the interstate crushes everything in its path.


----------



## Douger (Apr 22, 2011)

Missourian said:


> > *Senators Introduce Bill to Boost Truck Weights
> >
> > *
> >
> ...


Have you yet to figure out than those whores don't give a flying fuck what YOU think ?
The megacorps want to send more shit with less fuel and trucks. They pay the whores(you vote for) to keep them in office.Prepare for potholes, accidents, and collapsed bridges etc.
That's OK. The whores will make damn sure YOU pay to fix them.
Now do you understand Captialism-Fascism ? 
Probably not. The same whores 'adjust" your " edJewkayshinnal system" as well.

The schools should be required to show this from K-12, 3 times a day.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wjt_gV050ek]YouTube - 535 Employees From Hell - Guy From Boston[/ame]


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 22, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Very true.  In those cases rail is not appropriate.  Specialty/time sensitive heavy shipping still has to go over the road at this moment.  Everything else... can pretty much go rail.  But if speed is critical, air.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 22, 2011)

zzzz said:


> I can see the steel industry liking this. The steel coils they load can be bigger and reduce the number of trucks needed by almost 20%. The problem and this I have witnessed is that the retaining systems for these coils will need to be strengthened considerably. I've seen trucks loose their coils and that my friends is very dangerous. A large steel coil bouncing down the interstate crushes everything in its path.


yeah, that is scary.  Ever watch the movie "The Island"?  When those rail car axles come off the semi... WOW... I can just imagine.


----------



## blu (Apr 22, 2011)

all non-local delivers should be done by train. trucks should only be used from the local train stop the warehouse


----------



## M14 Shooter (Apr 22, 2011)

blu said:


> All non-local delivers should be done by train. trucks should only be used from the local train stop the warehouse


If it were cost effective to do it way, it would be done that way.
There's a reason the CSX does not run containers from, say, Buffalo, to deramp in Detroit.

As I said - rail is more cost-effective in runs of around 1000 miles or more - below that, OTR is (generally) cheaper.


----------



## Sense (Apr 22, 2011)

What we need to do is what every other developed nation is doing and upgrade the rail system. A train goin 150 down a straight track pulling hundreds of thousands of pounds is a hell of a lot more efficinet. Sadly though, our hundred year old rails cant handle it, thats where moeny should be going.


----------



## Missourian (Apr 22, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > Trucks are too big and too heavy already.  We shouldn't allow any increase.  In fact, we should reduce the allowed sizes and weights.  Better yet, put the freight on rails.  Rail transportation is safer and less costly.
> ...



I also think rail is the way to go,  but rail yards will need vast improvements to handle that kind of demand...they struggle now with the shipping load they transport today.

Also,  the entire logistics system will need to be overhauled,  as well as the tax code.

Manufacturers are taxed on all inventory that is held over a certain number of days.  Instead of holding inventory,  they require "Just In Time" truck service.

Automobile manufactures are the worst offenders...set up in such a way that a late truck will shut down an assembly line after only a four hour delay.


----------



## martybegan (Apr 22, 2011)

Sense said:


> What we need to do is what every other developed nation is doing and upgrade the rail system. A train goin 150 down a straight track pulling hundreds of thousands of pounds is a hell of a lot more efficinet. Sadly though, our hundred year old rails cant handle it, thats where moeny should be going.



Can a frieght train even do 150 MPH? Would you even want that much tonnage having that much kinetic energy?


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 22, 2011)

zzzz said:


> I can see the steel industry liking this. The steel coils they load can be bigger and reduce the number of trucks needed by almost 20%. The problem and this I have witnessed is that the retaining systems for these coils will need to be strengthened considerably. I've seen trucks loose their coils and that my friends is very dangerous. A large steel coil bouncing down the interstate crushes everything in its path.



Our mill produces these kinds of coils. And most go out by rail. However, occassionaly someone will send a truck for one. I have yet to see a truck that is designed for the coils. Mostly, it is a lowboy, and the set the coil on the round, rather than the flat, because that is the way that our hysters are set up to load them onto rail. Then the driver blocks the coil with dunnage. A couple of times the trucks have lost the coils on public roads. Don't know of any casaulties from that, but the ensueing traffic jam is a horror as they try to get a crane in to put the load back on the truck.

For a steel coil, there should be a law about the retaining system. The possibilities of catastrophe are just too great.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 22, 2011)

martybegan said:


> Sense said:
> 
> 
> > What we need to do is what every other developed nation is doing and upgrade the rail system. A train goin 150 down a straight track pulling hundreds of thousands of pounds is a hell of a lot more efficinet. Sadly though, our hundred year old rails cant handle it, thats where moeny should be going.
> ...



After seeing frieght cars from a derailment on the Columbia Gorge by I-84 doing end for ends at only about 50 mph, I don't think I want to see freight trains doing 150 mph. Another point here is the type of cargo many of these trains carry. Some of the chemicals are quite toxic, and the increase in speed represents that much more energy with which to rupture the container.


----------



## Missourian (Apr 22, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> They're talking about allowing 6 axle vehicles nation wide.  It's already being done in states like the Dakotas.  An odd twist according to truckers I've heard call in to the Jason Lewis Show that debated this about 2 months ago is that with an extra axle and that much weight, they stop and handle better than with 5 axles and 75k#.
> 
> I know this much, in my 13k# school bus that I used to drive, I had better handling and control than in my car in snow and ice.  And now in a 60 foot Articulated bus with 3 axles and more weight, it is even better.  Yes your stopping distance increases some... that's a given factor of velocity and inertia.
> 
> ...




Automobile drives just don't understand that heavier trucks and buses break up ice and squeeze snow out from under their tires by sheer weight.

My tires tread is 36/32 deep...that's more than an inch.

The heavier I am,  the safe it is to drive...on flat ground.

Put a grade into the equation,  it's a whole different story though.

I remember running on I-80 in Iowa in a snowstorm...pretty flat,  right?

But even up the smallest knoll,  the drive axles would break traction and the RPMs would spike trying to pull that weight up the slightest incline.

The same with the downgrade...just lightly tapping the brakes causes the heavy load to attempt to overrun the light (by comparison) tractor.

The heavier the load /  the steeper the grade /  the more pronounced this effect.

Tractor weight:  17-25 thousand pounds.

Trailer weight:  10-18 thousand pounds.

Average combination weight: 33,000 lbs.

Proposed maximum gross weight: 97,000 lbs.

That means the maximum load weight will be twice the weight of the truck.

_____________________________


Adding an axle will still damage the road more with more weight.

The proposed sixth axle is a single tire retractable drop axle.

The improvement in weight distribution is offset when you consider dragging that 18,000 lbs axle around every corner.

Two axles in tandem will turn,  three means at least one will constantly drag.


----------



## Missourian (Apr 22, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> zzzz said:
> 
> 
> > I can see the steel industry liking this. The steel coils they load can be bigger and reduce the number of trucks needed by almost 20%. The problem and this I have witnessed is that the retaining systems for these coils will need to be strengthened considerably. I've seen trucks loose their coils and that my friends is very dangerous. A large steel coil bouncing down the interstate crushes everything in its path.
> ...




I totally agree.

We don't haul any coils in the Shotgun or Suicide configuration,  only in the palletized "Eye to the Sky" configuration.





Suicide configuration















​
You can see why it's called "suicide"...if that coil breaks it's restraints in an emergency braking situation,  the first person flatted to 1/50 normal size is the driver.

Too dangerous IMO to haul a 30,000 lb or higher coil.

Too much weight concentrated in too small an area. 

Look at that 40-50,000 lb coil!

Under the proposed rules a *70,000* lb. coil would be legal to transport by truck.


----------



## Charles_Main (Apr 22, 2011)

Missourian said:


> > *Senators Introduce Bill to Boost Truck Weights
> >
> > *
> >
> ...



Have to disagree. I have a class A CDL and have drove Long Haul Trucks. With modern Tires and Modern Roads there is no reason the roads can not handle 100,000 Pounds or more.

As far as the Brakes not being able to handle it. You are completely wrong. There are log haulers on private Dirt roads hauling 200,000 Pounds at a time. There is no reason the Trucks can not handle 100,000 Pound loads. The Current Limits are not based on what the Trucks can handle. They are based on How much it is thought roads can handle, and frankly they are a bit out dated. Advances in breaks, Tires, Suspension and Road making mean most roads can easily handle much more than 80,000 pounds. For that matter More Tires can be added to trailers to spread the weight out. Essentially you could have the same or even less Weight per tire, while hauling more total weight, Just by adding a couple axles. 

This move is meant to conserve Energy. You are talking about a 25% increase in cargo Hauling capacity. The Trucks will burn only a small amount more fuel while Hauling More Cargo. 

Take it from someone who has actually worked in the Industry. 100,000 Pounds is reasonable, and will save Millions of Gallons of Fuel a year, and lower shipping costs.


----------



## editec (Apr 22, 2011)

Missourian said:


> > *Senators Introduce Bill to Boost Truck Weights*
> >
> >
> >
> ...


 

Yup! 

18 wheelers, especially those double trialer jobs are too damned big already.

They'd be fine, I imagine, if they weren't also on the road with regular cars. 

Plus as Missourian points out, that much weight just breaks down the roads all the faster.


----------



## Missourian (Apr 22, 2011)

Charles_Main said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > > *Senators Introduce Bill to Boost Truck Weights
> ...




I know the trucks can haul it,  but stopping 100,000 pounds is the problem,  not moving it.

There will be very little fuel savings.

At 65,000 lb. truck/load at 70 mph averages 7 mpg.

At 80,000 lb. truck/load at 70 mph averages 6 mpg.

One can infer a 95,000 truck/load at 70 mph will average 5 mpg,  a 17% reduction in fuel mileage for a 17% increase in payload is a wash...no savings whatsoever.


----------



## Missourian (Apr 22, 2011)

Here's a source on that average MPG for Class 8 commercial trucks



> Since 1990 the average fuel economy of single unit trucks has increased from 6.2 to 8.8 miles per gallon (MPG)* while the average fuel economy of combination trucks has only increased from 5.8 to 5.9 MPG *.



http://www.sturmanindustries.com/main/latestNews/MJB_HDFEissues_09.pdf
Page 7,  "Vehicles, Mileage, and Fuel Use",  paragraph 3.


----------



## Missourian (Apr 22, 2011)

Spreading the weight to another axle still causes more damage to the roadway.

You can find the explanation here:  Equivalent Single Axle Load - Pavement Interactive


What it boils down to can be found in table one.

A single 18,000 axle is rated as a load factor of 1.00 on flexible pavement and 1.00 on rigid pavement.

A tandem 34,000 axle combination (two 18,000 singles side by side) has a load equivalency factor of 1.11 on flexible pavement and 1.92 on rigid pavement.

If spreading the load by simply adding another axle created the same damage to the road,  the the load factor of the tandem axle would be 1.00 just like the single axle.

Table 1 doesn't expand to include triple axles but judging from the increase between single and tandem (almost double for rigid roadway),  one can infer an equal increase from tandem to triple. 

And no one is arguing that the damage to bridges will not increase with heavier loads.

Many bridges on major U.S. Highways are rated below the present standard of 40 tons.

This entire proposal is a terrible idea all the way around.


----------



## Charles_Main (Apr 22, 2011)

Missourian said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



I would question 5MPG, I believe as you add more weight the ratio of Fuel Use goes down Could be wrong, But even if you are right and it is a wash, then you still have more Freight per Trip which will indeed lower shipping costs. 

Like I said I know Guys who regularly Haul 200,000 Pound loads of Logs. I Really do not think 100,000 Pounds is to much for Modern Trucks breaks to handle. Simply use trailers like we have here in Michigan. 22 wheels I believe they are. Spreads the weight out, and gives you added breaks. Restrict the Bigger loads to the Interstates and I don't see why it should be to much of a problem. 

One of the First things you learn when you go to school to get a CDL is this. 80% of all accidents involving a big Rig are the Fault of the Other Vehicle/Vehicles Involved. Since going through it, I personally think everyone on the road should have to take a condensed version of it. It made me a much safer driver in any vehicle.  

IMO Truck Drivers would have no problem handling 100,000 Pound loads regularly. In fact they do all the time already with special Permits. Hauling 100k and much more on the open road is not illegal, you just need permits.


----------



## Missourian (Apr 22, 2011)

Charles_Main said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...




It doesn't matter that the truck driver isn't at fault,  when a car cuts in front of a fully loaded truck and jams the brakes to make a right turn...he or she is going to get killed by a 100,000 lb. truck that could have stopped at 80,000 lbs. 





EDIT - This proposed increase does not limit the loads to interstates,  this is shippers wanting dock to dock service on all U.S. roadways.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 22, 2011)

Sense said:


> What we need to do is what every other developed nation is doing and upgrade the rail system. A train goin 150 down a straight track pulling hundreds of thousands of pounds is a hell of a lot more efficinet. Sadly though, our hundred year old rails cant handle it, thats where moeny should be going.


Nice theory, major problem.  The cause?  Geography.

In France the TGV runs at full 150mph speed on only a few lines.  The most famous is between Tours and Paris.  A real speed track.  The Eurostar can only break 150 on either side of the Chunnel, otherwise, it's coasting at a leisurely 100ish.  Everywhere else, you're not going to get the same speed.  It's still a good system in Europe, but not perfect.

In the US, there are two issues with this.  The limited space in which long distance 150+ speed is possible.  Mostly the great plains, some of the Great Basin and Texas and the South East.  The mountains, totally out.  The next is distance.  The US is huge in comparison to Europe.  Russia is a better example... not great but a better one.  

Marty brings up another excellent point: Mass in Motion.  The most economic method for hauling freight is the 'drag method'.  You string as many cars as possible behind a set of engines.  100, 200, 300 cars packed full of double and triple stacked container carriers.  That's not hundreds of thousands of pounds.  That's MILLIONS of TONS!

So, combine the factors.  Millions of tons of freight, moving at 100+ mph through say Horseshoe Curve on the East coast which is a 2% grade around a massive cul de sac valley and is the major artery for freight north and south on the east coast.  Even improved track, a derailment would be catastrophic because it's such an essential corridor.  Increased speed and weight would automatically increase the odds of this happening.

I dunno man.  Check the speeds of freight trains in europe.  I doubt they're as high as you think.


----------



## Samson (Apr 23, 2011)

Missourian said:


> Truck drivers oppose this increase.
> 
> Owner-operators oppose this increase.
> 
> The driving public opposes this increase.



I wondered who favored this increase? The non-driving public?

Seems to be a fairly small constiuancy.

However, I like the idea of States deciding how much trucks may carry, or frankly, 99% of whatever happens in the state:

Here are the competing bills:




> In brief
>  HR 1799, the Safe and
> Efficient Transportation
> Act of 2009
> ...



It appears to me that the "PRO" bill is in favor of states deciding to increase loads, and pays states to upgrade roadways for the increased loads.

The "CON" bill forces all states to be regulated to the federal limits, regardless of whatever might make the most sense in that state, or whatever the people of that state might want. 

Frankly, I'd think a state like, say Rhode Island, like the smaller European countries that Zander mentioned that allow larger loads would benefit. And if it wouldn't benefit, it should be up to the state to decide.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 23, 2011)

Samson said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Truck drivers oppose this increase.
> ...


Shit .... they can't handle what's on the road today.  Thursday, someone put a case of dumb in their coffee, for instance and I had 2 people try to kill themselves against my bus on my morning run alone.

IIRC, there is one group this bill COULD help outside of the big companies moving more freight and having fewer drivers, owner operators.  They can increase their rates and get higher profit (in theory) per load and help them keep running.  BUT... as I just learned, their insurance rates and personal danger would shoot way way WAY up.  So I don't know who's really the driving force.

Doing this on local roads is very concerning indeed.


----------



## Samson (Apr 23, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



Another reason owner/operators don't like it is they wouldn't be competitive without the expensive to install 6th axel.

Regardless, the STATES should decide what is safe, fair, or whatever, within their borders: Not the Feds.


----------



## jillian (Apr 23, 2011)

Samson said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



not true. i'd direct you to the cases dealing with the interstate commerce. this one deals with mud flaps, specifically.

BIBB V. NAVAJO FREIGHT LINES, INC., 359 U. S. 520 :: Volume 359 :: 1959 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez


----------



## B. Kidd (Apr 23, 2011)

Missourian said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



You mean similar to this?:




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hhq2ZToBAv4]YouTube - !!CAUGHT ON VIDEO:BIG RIG FLIPS OVER HIGHWAY MEDIAN!![/ame]


----------



## Samson (Apr 23, 2011)

jillian said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



What's "not true?"

IMHO, States should be able to decide if 97,000 lb trucking can happen (if there's a 6th axel on the truck) within their state, and if they do decide its OK, then they should quailfy for federal funding to upgrade roads/bridges.

How does this issue have anything to do with the case you've cited?

Is it because trucks have mud-flaps?


----------



## Missourian (Apr 23, 2011)

Like this:


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNAxQTr9rvg&feature=fvsr]YouTube - Semi Truck Rolls Over[/ame]​

I actually saw this accident,  I have pictures of the aftermath from the cab of my truck,  I'll hunt them up.

This truck driver came around the corner at highway speed and there in front of him was stopped traffic.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 23, 2011)

Missourian said:


> Like this:
> 
> 
> YouTube - Semi Truck Rolls Over​
> ...


well he blew his smith system certification that day.  Yeep!


----------



## B. Kidd (Apr 23, 2011)

I 100% agree with the OP. Both vids in daylight w/ normal driving conditions. Throw in rain, fog, ice, or snow and many more major wrecks will increase, maybe to the tune of 50-60%.
Also can't fail to mention the SWIFT transport driver factor too (Sure Wish I Finished Training).


----------



## Samson (Apr 23, 2011)

B. Kidd said:


> I 100% agree with the OP. Both vids in daylight w/ normal driving conditions. Throw in rain, fog, ice, or snow and many more major wrecks will increase, maybe to the tune of 50-60%.
> Also can't fail to mention the SWIFT transport driver factor too (Sure Wish I Finished Training).



You mean...trucks have accidents?

Shit! I bet cars do to!

Maybe the Federal government should ban all forms of transportation that exceed 10 mph.

The fact is that the Feds are cracking down on Trucking, and you guys know it. Hell, you cannot stop and take a leak without recording it, and if you don't wipe your ass well enough, you'll lose your CDL.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 23, 2011)

Samson said:


> B. Kidd said:
> 
> 
> > I 100% agree with the OP. Both vids in daylight w/ normal driving conditions. Throw in rain, fog, ice, or snow and many more major wrecks will increase, maybe to the tune of 50-60%.
> ...


Yep.  If you're too heavy, you gotta get sleep apnea testing cause, you know... 37% of SERIOUS FATAL accidents are caused by falling asleep behind the wheel.  I'm sure that the percentage is far greater for all accidents.  

They don't want 'unhealthy' or imperfect drivers.  The world is not safe and if you can't be perfect, you shouldn't be doing anything in it that could be dangerous at any time.

Fucking morons.  Way to grow the economy.


----------



## Samson (Apr 23, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > B. Kidd said:
> ...



Yeah I heard about the Fat Trucker rule....for christssakes, doesn't that disqualify like 80% of the truckers out there?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Apr 23, 2011)

jillian said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...


Oh look - my favorite fraud!

Posting something she found on Google, without any hope of understanding it.
As usual.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 23, 2011)

Samson said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...


That rule cost me $6000 and nearly my job.  Insurance wouldn't cover it, even if I did have it unless you had a 'cadillac union plan', and had to pay for it all at my own expense because some 10 year old died in a tragic accident 5 years ago and someone screamed 'we must protect the chiiillllllldreeeennnnnnnn!!!!!'  

And if you don't get the testing... you can't have a DOT Health Card.  If you are discovered to have sleep apnea, you must now get DOT Health card evals every year doubling the income of the occupational health clinics.  Nice fucking scam.


----------



## Samson (Apr 23, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



Yep, and from what I understand, its only the tip of the iceberg.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 23, 2011)

Samson said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...


They keep it up and nobody will be qualified for the work.  There are thousands of drivers across the nation being weeded out as 'unfit' when they are perfectly fine.  All to make medical companies money, and people dependent on gubmint handouts.


----------



## Charles_Main (Apr 23, 2011)

Frankly I do not understand the big deal over this. You are on the road with trucks all the time hauling 100,000 Pounds and more. They call em over sized loads. To me this is yet another example of Nanny state intrusion. The Industry is trying to find away to increase profitability and half you people in here got your panties in a bunch about a 17,000 pound increase to the weight limit. 

Like I said 80% of accidents involving trucks are caused by the other drivers. If you fuck up and pull out in front of a big rig, it is not going to make much difference if it is hauling 80 or 100K Either way you a probably dead. 

This will allow them to haul about 20% more Freight in the same number of trips as before, and I maintain that it will save fuel as well. Others have disputed that fact, but having drove truck myself. What I saw in the MPG of my truck is that it did go down as you added weight, but it seemed to me for example that going from 40k to 60k Cost about 1mpg but going from 60k to 80k only cost about another .5 MPG. 

I have no problem being on the road with trucks hauling 100,000 pounds, but then like I said I have had CDL training, and drove truck. I respect the trucks, and know not to put myself in stupid situations where I might end up crushed by one. IMO there needs to be more education for regular drivers about trucks. What it takes to stop them, their blind spots, etc. Would make the roads much safer.


----------



## Missourian (Apr 23, 2011)

Samson said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



Adding a drop axle is around three thousand dollars.  Perhaps 2 weeks worth of profit per truck.  

If states were REALLY allowed to decide,  most would LOWER the gross weight limits in their state.  Of course,  this bill doesn't allow that.  So much for that idea.


----------



## Missourian (Apr 23, 2011)

Charles_Main said:


> Frankly I do not understand the big deal over this. You are on the road with trucks all the time hauling 100,000 Pounds and more. They call em over sized loads. To me this is yet another example of Nanny state intrusion. The Industry is trying to find away to increase profitability and half you people in here got your panties in a bunch about a 17,000 pound increase to the weight limit.
> 
> Like I said 80% of accidents involving trucks are caused by the other drivers. If you fuck up and pull out in front of a big rig, it is not going to make much difference if it is hauling 80 or 100K Either way you a probably dead.
> 
> ...




Did you ever pull an overweight load?

I have.

Did you ever own a truck?

I do.

Have you pulled an 80,000 lb. tanker load of liquid?

I have.

Have you pulled a 73,000 set of doubles?

I have.

Have you run 1,000,000 safe miles?

I have...in one truck.

I give you my cast iron guarantee,  based on my experience, 100K is unsafe given the caliber of today's truck drivers and the current habits of the driving public.


----------



## Missourian (Apr 23, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



That sucks.  

What a crock.


----------



## The T (Apr 23, 2011)

Missourian said:


> > *Senators Introduce Bill to Boost Truck Weights*
> >
> >
> >
> ...


 
Good thing I looked at this. Your title is on the mark. With all the griping about 'crumbling roads and infrastructure, this indeed a bone-headed move.


----------



## Charles_Main (Apr 23, 2011)

Missourian said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > Frankly I do not understand the big deal over this. You are on the road with trucks all the time hauling 100,000 Pounds and more. They call em over sized loads. To me this is yet another example of Nanny state intrusion. The Industry is trying to find away to increase profitability and half you people in here got your panties in a bunch about a 17,000 pound increase to the weight limit.
> ...



I submit that if the caliber of drivers is an issue. It is just as unsafe at 80k as 100k.

No I do not own my own truck, Yes I have hauled over 100,000 Pounds. With Permits of course. Yes I have hauled Doubles. 

No I am not yet at 1,000,000 Miles. 

Guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

Personally I think any slight rise in Accidents would be offset by Being able to haul more with less trips. Which would mean less trucks on the road for the same amount of hauling. Therefore less risk. I also believe the Added Damage to roads would be minimal. 90% of damage to roads is not caused by the traffic on them, it is caused by the weather. I don't see much difference in More Trucks with 80 Pounds loads, or less trucks with 97,000 Pounds as far as road wear. Especially if they add axles.


----------



## Missourian (Apr 23, 2011)

Charles_Main said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



"I submit that if the caliber of drivers is an issue. It is just as unsafe at 80k as 100k."

Yes,  if it was up to me,  I'd LOWER the current weight limit.


Read the post about single axle damage vs. tandem axle damage.   http://www.usmessageboard.com/congr...ts-to-97-000-lbs-is-insane-2.html#post3560170

Trucks cause highway damage.

Here it is straight from the GAO:  http://archive.gao.gov/f0302/109884.pdf

It's scanned from a type written page so I can't copy and paste is.

EDIT - The DOT was supposed to study the fuel savings from uping the weight limit in 1978...wonder if they did?


----------



## Missourian (Apr 23, 2011)

Read page ii,  "Highway Deterioration",  paragraph 2Paraphrased:  Although a 5 axle truck at the current federal limit of 80,000 lbs. weighs only 20 times more than a car,  it does 9,600 times more damage.  Increasing truck weight causes an ever increasing rate of pavement damage."

GAO Study http://archive.gao.gov/f0302/109884.pdf​


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 23, 2011)

The honest truth about what I fear most over this increase in weight?  This:

YouTube - 35W Bridge Collapse LIVE VIDEO ACTUAL Minneapolis Minnesota


----------



## The T (Apr 23, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> The honest truth about what I fear most over this increase in weight? This:
> 
> YouTube - 35W Bridge Collapse LIVE VIDEO ACTUAL Minneapolis Minnesota


 
Indeed. And that was caused apparently by a _design flaw._



*Design Flaw Likely Cause of Minneapolis Bridge Collapse*

Makes you wonder how many more are out there?


----------



## Samson (Apr 23, 2011)

Missourian said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



There are two bills: one freezes the maximum at 80,000 lbs, the other increases it to a 97,000 lb max, with a 6th axel, and provides funding for the road improvements needed in states that adopt this max.

I see no reason to believe states would wanna lower the upper limit.


----------



## Samson (Apr 23, 2011)

Missourian said:


> Read page ii,  "Highway Deterioration",  paragraph 2Paraphrased:  Although a 5 axle truck at the current federal limit of 80,000 lbs. weighs only 20 times more than a car,  it does 9,600 times more damage.  Increasing truck weight causes an ever increasing rate of pavement damage."
> 
> GAO Study http://archive.gao.gov/f0302/109884.pdf​



So, the bill that increases weight also provides funding to improve the roads over which the weight will be carried.

Next?


----------



## Samson (Apr 23, 2011)

Missourian said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > Frankly I do not understand the big deal over this. You are on the road with trucks all the time hauling 100,000 Pounds and more. They call em over sized loads. To me this is yet another example of Nanny state intrusion. The Industry is trying to find away to increase profitability and half you people in here got your panties in a bunch about a 17,000 pound increase to the weight limit.
> ...



Great: then your state should listen to your testimony, and decide for itself what it wants to do.


----------



## Samson (Apr 23, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> The honest truth about what I fear most over this increase in weight?  This:
> 
> YouTube - 35W Bridge Collapse LIVE VIDEO ACTUAL Minneapolis Minnesota



If you let birds shit all over the bridge (pidgeon droppings are very corrosive) and you don't paint the gawddamn thing, then it will eventually fall if a Volkswagon Beetle drives across it.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 23, 2011)

Samson said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > The honest truth about what I fear most over this increase in weight?  This:
> ...


and that's happened in every state, ever city, every county of the US.  They're too busy raiding the highway funds to buttress up social spending for ingrates and "THA CHIIIIILLLLLLDRRRRRIIIINNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!"


----------



## xsited1 (Apr 23, 2011)

Samson said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > The honest truth about what I fear most over this increase in weight?  This:
> ...



Especially if the Volkswagen Beetle weights 97,000 pounds.


----------



## Missourian (Apr 23, 2011)

Samson said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Read page ii,  "Highway Deterioration",  paragraph 2Paraphrased:  Although a 5 axle truck at the current federal limit of 80,000 lbs. weighs only 20 times more than a car,  it does 9,600 times more damage.  Increasing truck weight causes an ever increasing rate of pavement damage."
> ...




*"In addition, it establishes a safe, efficient vehicle bridge infrastructure improvement program and apportions amounts from the Safe and Efficient Vehicle Trust Fund to states for eligible bridge replacement or rehabilitation projects.*"


You posted this.   Not a word about roads.

Some money for bridges of which *1 in 9 is already substandard*.

Despite billions of dollars in federal, state and local funds directed toward the maintenance of existing bridges, *69,223 bridges &#8212; 11.5 percent of total highway bridges* in the U.S. &#8212; are classified as "structurally deficient," requiring significant maintenance, rehabilitation or replacement.​
http://t4america.org/resources/bridges/


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 23, 2011)

Missourian said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Trucks have a 97K GVW limit in the UK- no problems- the world has not ended.
> ...


in California its 55 MPH.....were in the hell is it 70-80?......


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 23, 2011)

Zander said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...



Zander when im doing 60 on the freeway and im being passed by some Semi doing 75......thats kinda scary and stupid......something happens in front of that guy......were all in trouble.....


----------



## xsited1 (Apr 23, 2011)

Harry Dresden said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



Like this?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFKtqJ_wiqY]YouTube - Close Call Semi Truck Crash Caught On Couples Dashcam[/ame]


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 23, 2011)

xsited1 said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...



like that......


----------



## Missourian (Apr 23, 2011)

Harry Dresden said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...



Almost everywhere else:  Truck and Auto State Speed Limits

Those are a few years out of date,  but you get the idea.

Utah has an 80 mph speed limit for trucks on I-15.






Wikipedia is more up to date:

Speed limits in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Charles_Main (Apr 23, 2011)

Harry Dresden said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



Must have been an owner operator. Almost all of the big companies put governors on their trucks. Usually topped out at 68 or so MPH. If you see a truck doing 75 and its not going down hill. Its an owner operator.


----------



## Samson (Apr 23, 2011)

Missourian said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



I posted a brief description of the bill, that indeed, did not account for every grain of sand that may need to go into improved highway construction for larger trucks. 

But it takes only a little common sense to conclude that if a STATE made the decision to allow 97,000 lb trucks on its roads (like they do all over Europe, without the earth ceasing to spin on its axis) then the state would impose speed limits that were safe for those vehicles as well as upgrade roads AND BRIDGES.

Certainly there is nothing to make me believe that the FEDs, holding the maximum at 80,000 lbs, have done a steller job of road and bridge maintainance.


Hell, instead of making bridges safer for bigger trucks, maybe we oughta close them to ALL traffic.


----------



## Samson (Apr 23, 2011)

Harry Dresden said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



Yep, oughta be a law against scary behaviour and stupid drivers.

Why not start a thread about it where it would be topical?


----------



## Missourian (Apr 23, 2011)

Samson said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...




There's *NO MONEY* to fix the roads.

States are broke.

The Federal government is broke.

That's why the bridges and roads aren't being fixed now.
September 2010-

New index by U.S. Chamber of Commerce shows GDP is suffering as a result of a poor system

Crumbling U.S. infrastructure is slowing economic growth, according to a new index released on Sept. 23 by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Transportation Performance Index is designed to show over time how U.S. transportation infrastructure is serving the needs of the U.S. economy and business community. This year, the index reveals that over the past five years failing infrastructure is weighing heavily on economic growth.Failing infrastructure weighing heavily on the economy

​------------------------------------------------------------------Infrastructure report card
American Society for Civil Engineers 

*Bridges: C*

More than 26%, or one in four, of the nation's bridges are either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. While some progress has been made in recent years to reduce the number of deficient and obsolete bridges in rural areas, the number in urban areas is rising. A $17 billion annual investment is needed to substantially improve current bridge conditions. Currently, only $10.5 billion is spent annually on the construction and maintenance of bridges.​

*Roads: D-*

Americans spend 4.2 billion hours a year stuck in traffic at a cost to the economy of $78.2 billion, or $710 per motorist. Poor road conditions cost motorists $67 billion a year in repairs and operating costs, and cost 14,000 Americans their lives. One-third of America's major roads are in poor or mediocre condition and 36% of major urban highways are congested. The current spending level of $70.3 billion per year for highway capital improvements is well below the estimated $186 billion needed annually to substantially improve the nation's highways.2009 Report Card for America's Infrastructure
​So the answer,  in your opinion,  is to INCREASE the damage to the roads and bridges that are already failing and that can't keep the maintenance up on NOW.


----------



## Charles_Main (Apr 24, 2011)

Missourian said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



You still have shown no proof that damage would be increased. As I have repeatedly pointed out More Weight allowed would mean less trips. So unless you can show us how Less trucks with more weight do more damage then more trucks with less weight. Then you are basing your opinion on what?


----------



## Samson (Apr 24, 2011)

Charles_Main said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



I think I've read a couple of posts that show heavier trucks cause road damage: regardless TRUCKS cause road damage at 80,000 lbs. 

But Missiourian is offering evidence that roads are _ALREADY_ damaged....BY 80,000 lb trucks. He even wants to know, if this is true, we haven't DECREASED the max weights for trucks.

I suspect there are two reasons
1. It wouldn't slow, but rather would speed, the deterioration of roadways
2. If we improve roadways with modern construction methods, then we want to encourage their use by fewer, larger trucks (as they have already done in Europe).

But either of these points are nothing compared with the State's right to detemine the size of trucks: If a small state with a low max speed and high quality roads wants 97,000 lbs trucking, why shouldn't they have that option?


----------



## Samson (Apr 24, 2011)

Missourian said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...






Geez, I wasn't aware that we had Armageddon suddenly goin' on in the USA. I must have missed it while driving across excellent roads in Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas.

Seems your rachetting up the level of hysteria a tad much:

Obama Budget Hikes Transportation But Cuts Other Construction Programs | ENR: Engineering News Record | McGraw-Hill Construction



> *Highways, transit and passenger rail are the big winners among construction programs in President Obama&#8217;s $3.7-trillion fiscal 2012 budget request, which calls for sharp increases in those sectors next year, kicking off a proposed $556-billion, six-year surface transportation bill.*


----------



## Missourian (Apr 24, 2011)

Samson said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...





You should have read it before you quoted it...proves my point succinctly...there's no money.  

From your article:

Even the huge proposed transportation billnearly double the last multiyear authorizationis not as promising as it sounds, transportation and construction industry officials say, because the White House did not identify any new funding source or recommend hiking existing taxes and fees to pay for the measure. 

Theyre willing to talk about construction but not particularly willing to invest more in it, says Jeffrey Shoaf, AGCs senior executive director for government affairs. They beef up the highway account without providing any revenue to fund [the] beef purchase.​Go back and try again.​


----------



## Samson (Apr 24, 2011)

Missourian said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...




Yes that is from the article, but it doesnt support anything near what you are saying:

"There is NO MONEY."

Hell, there's been "NO MONEY" for anything this country has built in the past 20 years!!

Try not to be so fucking hysterical: It only weakens your arguement.​


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 24, 2011)

Samson said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...


Sure there's money in this country!  It's either in the rich people's bank accounts being hoarded from the poor and downtrodden gubmint who will then give it to the poor and downtrodded (with a little slice of the pie for itself) or it's already been given to foreign nations to be our friends, or to buy votes by keeping social 'safety hammocks' in good repair.


----------



## Samson (Apr 24, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



Who needs to worry about money?

Is the printer broken?


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 24, 2011)

Samson said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...


Yes... the printer (Bernanke) IS broken!  And sooner than you can say 'Fratelli' we'll be broke too.


----------



## Missourian (Apr 24, 2011)

Samson said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



That's exactly what the article you posted says.

Theyre willing to talk about construction but not particularly willing to invest more in it, says Jeffrey Shoaf, AGCs senior executive director for government affairs. They beef up the highway account without providing any revenue to fund [the] beef purchase.​No money.

How hard is it to understand that if we had the money for the repairs to our failing infrastructure,  we wouldn't be in this predicament now.

Roads rated D-,  1 in 9 bridges structurally deficient.  That tells the tale.

We are not keeping up now,  with 80,000 lb trucks.

Adding more destructive weights when we've proven we can't keep up now is idiotic.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 24, 2011)

Know the saddest part?  The first bridge that busts because too heavy a truck goes over it, they won't blame the structural deficiency of the bridge but the stupid driver.


----------



## Missourian (Apr 24, 2011)

Samson said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



Alright,  you got me.


I think you are being disingenuous. 

Are you just stirring the pot?


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 24, 2011)

Missourian said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...


No... no stir teh pots...

I kick teh babby.


----------



## editec (Apr 24, 2011)

Charles_Main said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...


 
He's basing his opinion on well understand facts in physics.

The fact that you are demanding that he prove to your satisfaction something so well understood is really indicative of your ignorance, not his lack of supporting evidence.


----------



## Synthaholic (Apr 24, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> zzzz said:
> 
> 
> > I can see the steel industry liking this. The steel coils they load can be bigger and reduce the number of trucks needed by almost 20%. The problem and this I have witnessed is that the retaining systems for these coils will need to be strengthened considerably. I've seen trucks loose their coils and that my friends is very dangerous. A large steel coil bouncing down the interstate crushes everything in its path.
> ...



A LAW?!?!?!?!  Why, that would mean *gasp* REGULATION!!!!  And that would mean a loss of FREEDOM and LIBERTY!!!!

Sounds like more Socialism (to wingnuts).


----------



## Samson (Apr 24, 2011)

Missourian said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...





*NOOOOOOOOO!!!!*

PS; Thanks for the rep (why do you have your PM turned off?)


----------



## Synthaholic (Apr 24, 2011)

Samson said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



So if morons in Utah decide it's OK, the rest of America should have to pony up to improve their roads/bridges?

Sounds like typical Rightwing mantra:  *privatize profits while socializing debt*.


----------



## Samson (Apr 24, 2011)

Synthaholic said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Morons in Utah?

You Dissin' Harry Reid?


----------



## Synthaholic (Apr 24, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...


Exercise some of that vaunted conservative value of 'personal responsibility' and lose some fucking weight!


----------



## Synthaholic (Apr 24, 2011)

Samson said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...


Do you support an additional tax on any OTR to cover the cost of the road/bridge upgrades?  Or do you favor dumping it on the taxpayers?


----------



## Samson (Apr 24, 2011)

Synthaholic said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



I think the state should raise the sales tax on deisel, and the vehicle registration fees.

I think they should use convicts, welfare recipients, and government loan defaulters to do most of the road/bridge repair.


----------



## Intense (Apr 24, 2011)

Missourian said:


> > *Senators Introduce Bill to Boost Truck Weights
> >
> > *
> >
> ...



Agreed. The Assholes are barely Maintaining Infrastructure as it is now. This will cost lives.


----------



## Synthaholic (Apr 24, 2011)

Samson said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...


Exhibit A:  Harry Reid is from Nevada!


----------



## Synthaholic (Apr 24, 2011)

Samson said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



Why should the regular Joe driving a diesel Dodge truck, or the housewife driving an older Volvo/Mercedes, etc. have to pay more?

Not very well thought out.

Why should convicts take work away from law-abiding Americans?


----------



## Synthaholic (Apr 24, 2011)

Intense said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > > *Senators Introduce Bill to Boost Truck Weights
> ...


Watch out, or you will be accused of caring about "the chiiiildren"!!!


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 24, 2011)

Synthaholic said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...


At least I can lose weight.  It's impossible to lose brain damage you fucking morphodite.  Good luck with your thinking disability.


----------



## The T (Apr 27, 2011)

Intense said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > > *Senators Introduce Bill to Boost Truck Weights*
> ...


 
Ad it appears that the only time there is any real reaction is when something goes horribly wrong.


----------



## Missourian (May 30, 2011)

Dear Mr (redacted),


Thank you for contacting me regarding the size of commercial trucks permitted on our nation's roads.  I appreciate hearing from you, and I welcome the chance to respond.
​ I share your concern regarding the attempts to increase the size of trucks on our roads.  Some groups, including some large trucking companies, have proposed raising the allowable weight for commercial vehicles using federal highways from 80,000 pounds to 97,000 pounds.  This would pose a significant risk to safety. 

For instance, research shows that the heavier trucks travel 25 percent further when the brakes are applied.  It would also put more strain on our highway infrastructure which is already badly in need of repair.  One 110,000-pound triple trailer causes as much pavement damage as 13,981 mini-vans.​ As you are well aware, the Administration has indicated its intent to make permanent pilot projects in Maine and Vermont that exempted heavy trucks from vehicle weight limitations.  I oppose this plan, and, in September 2010, I joined several other senators in sending a letter to the Senate Appropriations Committee expressing my opposition.  The pilot progam has been temporarily extended but no decision has been made about a permanent extension yet.  I believe that since heavier and larger trucks compromise the safety of motorists and increase the stress on our nation's infrastructure, the Congress should approach this policy in the context of comprehensive surface transportation reform rather than in the piece-meal fashion as proposed.  I am hopeful that such a reform effort, which is long overdue, will be undertaken soon.

You may also be interested to know that, in the 111th Congress, I co-sponsored legislation with Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, the Safe Truck Operations and Preservation Act (S. 779), that would explicitly limit tractor trailer trucks on interstate highways to 80,000 pounds and establish a maximum length of 53 feet for trucks.  Unfortunately, it never received passage before the session ended.​ 
​ Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance to you on this or any other issue.​ 
Sincerely,

Claire McCaskill

 United States Senator

 P.S. If you would like more information about resources that can help Missourians, or what I am doing in the Senate on your behalf, please sign up for my email newsletter at www.mccaskill.senate.gov.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 ​


----------



## Synthaholic (May 30, 2011)

Missourian said:


> One 110,000-pound triple trailer causes as much pavement damage as 13,981 mini-vans.




That figure should be enough to convince everybody, especially so-called 'fiscally conservative Republicans' who are supposedly great businessmen . . . it's not good business to allow your hugely expensive and time-consuming road projects to get destroyed in the interests of moving more palettes of Del Monte French Green Beans.

They did a little 2-lane cement flyover in my town about 10 years ago, and just that was $35 million, back then.  What does it cost to do major Interstate repair and/or reconstruction now?  We see it happening everywhere - you are always having to go to one lane for a 2-3 mile stretch while they are repairing and repaving the other one.  That's costing a lot of tax dollars that would be better spent using those same crews to build new infrastructure and repair bridges and railways.


----------



## whitehall (May 31, 2011)

Before you ignorant people become hysterical about an additional 17,000 pounds you need to be aware of a few things. States are allowed to determine the gross weight allowed on their roads including interstates but the federal government has placed a (illegal?) freeze on the maximum weight allowed on the interstate highway system. The dirty little secret is that trucks over the 80,000 limit are forced off the interstate on to secondary roads which is far worse for the infrastructure than continuing along the interstate. The bill would require an extra axle to equalize the weight. Since, according to the president, there is little chance that diesel fuel prices will drop anytine soon it's the best way to get more goods to market at a reasonable price. Remember that the next time you lefties whine about the price of that latte or the bottled drink you crave 24/7.


----------



## Synthaholic (May 31, 2011)

whitehall said:


> Before you ignorant people become hysterical about an additional 17,000 pounds you need to be aware of a few things. States are allowed to determine the gross weight allowed on their roads including interstates but the federal government has placed a (illegal?) freeze on the maximum weight allowed on the interstate highway system. The dirty little secret is that trucks over the 80,000 limit are forced off the interstate on to secondary roads which is far worse for the infrastructure than continuing along the interstate. The bill would require an extra axle to equalize the weight. Since, according to the president, there is little chance that diesel fuel prices will drop anytine soon it's the best way to get more goods to market at a reasonable price. Remember that the next time you lefties whine about the price of that latte or the bottled drink you crave 24/7.


You're a cartoon.


----------



## whitehall (May 31, 2011)

The bill isn't going to establish a new weight standard. There are "legal" 97k tax paid trucks all over the roads today. The bill is a good thing. I would require a 6th axle for loads exceeding 80k and it would eliminate the quirky federal freeze that forced 97k trucks off the interstate and on to secondary roads. Since we can't do anything about the rising cost of diesel we might as well give truckers any break we can.


----------



## Polk (Jun 1, 2011)

Missourian said:


> > WASHINGTON, April 20, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- American voters say they are overwhelmingly opposed to allowing bigger, heavier trucks on our nation's highways, according to a national survey released today.  Conducted by Hart Research Associates on behalf of the Coalition Against Bigger Trucks (CABT), the survey found public opinion is strongly against proposals being pushed by some large trucking companies asking Congress to raise the national cap on truck size by 20 percent to 97,000 pounds from the current limit of 80,000 pounds.
> >
> >
> > The survey found that voters "overwhelmingly and consistently oppose allowing bigger, heavier trucks on American highways," with nearly three quarters, or 72 percent, of registered voters opposing such an increase, and half of those surveyed, 49 percent, said that they strongly opposed the idea.  The survey also found that the opposition stems from public concerns about the increased threat of accidents posed by heavier trucks, as well as increased highway damage, added traffic congestion and potential tax hikes to pay for highway damage.
> ...



I don't know enough about this issue to have a position, but do you really think 72% of Americans oppose this? I doubt 10% of Americans have even heard of it.


----------

