Tripple Trailer Trucks

[kphoger]

to allow these mini-trains on our roadways is sheer insanity, fueled by the greed of bought-off politicians and the corporations that own them.

hyperbole much?

[ilpt4u]

In my not-so-humble opinion, TRAINS BELONG ON THE RAILROAD, NOT ON OUR HIGHWAYS!

It's bad enough we have so many regular passenger vehicles and standard trucks being operated by distracted & impaired morons, but to allow these mini-trains on our roadways is sheer insanity, fueled by the greed of bought-off politicians and the corporations that own them. Oh, and you can add allowing any & all "driverless vehicles" to that as well. They really appear to want to kill us all!

End of rant.

I like a lot of the rant - Interstate highways should need a lot less maintenance if more freight were kept either on Railroads and/or Waterways. Less maintenance should equal lower taxes and/or lower tolls, and/or more $$$ for system expansion in capacity and/or interchanges

On any & all driverless vehicles, tho...I've taken plenty of Airport "Air Trains"  both Landside and Airside of security, and I believe all of them I have ridden are driverless. Granted, a completely access closed track system with a set number of trains, but still driverless, and it works pretty well and safely

The Vegas underground loop driven by driverless Teslas sounds interesting - might put it on the list on a future Vegas trip

[kphoger]

Interstate highways should need a lot less maintenance if more freight were kept either on Railroads and/or Waterways. Less maintenance should equal lower taxes and/or lower tolls, and/or more $$$ for system expansion in capacity and/or interchanges

Wouldn't putting all that freight on railroads dramatically increase the capacity needs of those railroads?  That means expansion, improvements, and increased maintenance and fleet for the railroads, right?  Would you rather have those costs come from our taxes instead–or would you rather they be absorbed by the railroads, then passed along to the shippers, then passed along to the consumers in the form of higher prices on goods?

[ethanhopkin14]

Interstate highways should need a lot less maintenance if more freight were kept either on Railroads and/or Waterways. Less maintenance should equal lower taxes and/or lower tolls, and/or more $$$ for system expansion in capacity and/or interchanges

Wouldn't putting all that freight on railroads dramatically increase the capacity needs of those railroads?  That means expansion, improvements, and increased maintenance and fleet for the railroads, right?  Would you rather have those costs come from our taxes instead–or would you rather they be absorbed by the railroads, then passed along to the shippers, then passed along to the consumers in the form of higher prices on goods?

Everyone will say let some private entity pay for the upkeep, lower our taxes and then distribute the cost somewhere else I don't see it so blatantly and think all is well. 

[HighwayStar]

In my not-so-humble opinion, TRAINS BELONG ON THE RAILROAD, NOT ON OUR HIGHWAYS!

It's bad enough we have so many regular passenger vehicles and standard trucks being operated by distracted & impaired morons, but to allow these mini-trains on our roadways is sheer insanity, fueled by the greed of bought-off politicians and the corporations that own them. Oh, and you can add allowing any & all "driverless vehicles" to that as well. They really appear to want to kill us all!

End of rant.

I like a lot of the rant - Interstate highways should need a lot less maintenance if more freight were kept either on Railroads and/or Waterways. Less maintenance should equal lower taxes and/or lower tolls, and/or more $$$ for system expansion in capacity and/or interchanges

On any & all driverless vehicles, tho...I've taken plenty of Airport "Air Trains"  both Landside and Airside of security, and I believe all of them I have ridden are driverless. Granted, a completely access closed track system with a set number of trains, but still driverless, and it works pretty well and safely

The Vegas underground loop driven by driverless Teslas sounds interesting - might put it on the list on a future Vegas trip

Except that is not how the economics of transport work. Things which are economical to haul by rail or water are already hauled by rail or water. However both are very inflexible, and even with advancements in containerization many goods are simply better hauled by truck given the flexibility involved.
Furthermore, removing that freight would also remove the tax revenue from those vehicles, making it nearly a zero sum game.

[ethanhopkin14]

In my not-so-humble opinion, TRAINS BELONG ON THE RAILROAD, NOT ON OUR HIGHWAYS!

It's bad enough we have so many regular passenger vehicles and standard trucks being operated by distracted & impaired morons, but to allow these mini-trains on our roadways is sheer insanity, fueled by the greed of bought-off politicians and the corporations that own them. Oh, and you can add allowing any & all "driverless vehicles" to that as well. They really appear to want to kill us all!

End of rant.

I like a lot of the rant - Interstate highways should need a lot less maintenance if more freight were kept either on Railroads and/or Waterways. Less maintenance should equal lower taxes and/or lower tolls, and/or more $$$ for system expansion in capacity and/or interchanges

On any & all driverless vehicles, tho...I've taken plenty of Airport "Air Trains"  both Landside and Airside of security, and I believe all of them I have ridden are driverless. Granted, a completely access closed track system with a set number of trains, but still driverless, and it works pretty well and safely

The Vegas underground loop driven by driverless Teslas sounds interesting - might put it on the list on a future Vegas trip

Except that is not how the economics of transport work. Things which are economical to haul by rail or water are already hauled by rail or water. However both are very inflexible, and even with advancements in containerization many goods are simply better hauled by truck given the flexibility involved.
Furthermore, removing that freight would also remove the tax revenue from those vehicles, making it nearly a zero sum game.

What!?  No!!  I want my Amazon purchases delivered to me by rail!  I demand it!

[sparker]

In my not-so-humble opinion, TRAINS BELONG ON THE RAILROAD, NOT ON OUR HIGHWAYS!

It's bad enough we have so many regular passenger vehicles and standard trucks being operated by distracted & impaired morons, but to allow these mini-trains on our roadways is sheer insanity, fueled by the greed of bought-off politicians and the corporations that own them. Oh, and you can add allowing any & all "driverless vehicles" to that as well. They really appear to want to kill us all!

End of rant.

I like a lot of the rant - Interstate highways should need a lot less maintenance if more freight were kept either on Railroads and/or Waterways. Less maintenance should equal lower taxes and/or lower tolls, and/or more $$$ for system expansion in capacity and/or interchanges

On any & all driverless vehicles, tho...I've taken plenty of Airport "Air Trains"  both Landside and Airside of security, and I believe all of them I have ridden are driverless. Granted, a completely access closed track system with a set number of trains, but still driverless, and it works pretty well and safely

The Vegas underground loop driven by driverless Teslas sounds interesting - might put it on the list on a future Vegas trip

Except that is not how the economics of transport work. Things which are economical to haul by rail or water are already hauled by rail or water. However both are very inflexible, and even with advancements in containerization many goods are simply better hauled by truck given the flexibility involved.
Furthermore, removing that freight would also remove the tax revenue from those vehicles, making it nearly a zero sum game.

What!?  No!!  I want my Amazon purchases delivered to me by rail!  I demand it!

Rail will do what rail does best -- make sure the cargo is in "bulk" form (i.e. a singular commodity or containerized) and move it from point "A" to a hub at point "B", those hopefully a thousand or more miles apart so as to make more money.  Unless there's a second rail-based "leg" of that journey, the majority of that cargo will leave by truck for a relatively shorter haul to a destination, possibly another smaller hub, at which point the process repeats itself on a smaller scale.  While there are small regional railroads, those, with a very few exceptions, are there to handle the agricultural or resource-extraction duties that the larger rail corporations would rather avoid; and much of what they haul will end up at one of the major "hubs" for transfer to long-haul freight in any case (particularly agricultural exports that make up much of the "reverse" movement to ports of entry).  This is S.O.P. that has gelled since the Staggers Act deregulated the railroads 41 years ago; there is no appreciable movement out there to undo, or even "tweak", that situation, so the chances of simply requiring rail to take on additional cargo, particularly in regard to shorter/regional hauls, are nil. 

And Amazon already bulk-moves much of their shit via containers in any case; there's a reason they locate near rail lines as well as Interstates.  Here in CA, stuff heading east out of state goes by rail; if it stays on or near the coast, transfers from larger to smaller Amazon hubs is done by truck.     

[roadfro]

I remember seeing one (FedEx or UPS, iirc) southbound on I-15 well south of Vegas and wondering if he was going to drop one trailer in Primm, since no triples are allowed in California.

Considering how lite traffic is in rural Nevada I've never paid it much mind that a truck might be hauling three trailers. 

Having grown up in Vegas, lived in Reno for most of the last 20 years, and having had occasion to drive between the two on multiple occasions, I'm fairly confident in saying that seeing triple trailers in Nevada is not an everyday occurrence. Although I get the feeling that because other nearby states don't allow triples to the extent we do, they're likely not feasible to operate here for long haul shipping purposes like UPS/FedEx.

Most of the times I've seen a triple, they've been construction haul trucks or the occasional tanker.

[Road Hog]

They call these "wiggle wagons" in trucker lingo for a reason.