TheHill.Com: GOP bill would allow states to decide on heavier trucks (http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/253275-gop-bill-would-allow-states-to-decide-on-heavier-trucks)
QuoteA House Republican lawmaker has filed legislation that would allow states to decide whether they want to allow heavier trucks on their roads in an attempt to end a bitter fight over truck weights that has raged for years in Washington.
QuoteThe measure, from Rep. Reid Ribble (R-Wis.), would allow states to decide whether they want to increase a current limit of 80,000 pounds for cargo trucks to 91,000 pounds, which is the level being sought by the trucking industry.
QuoteRibble said Thursday that allowing states to decide for themselves would end a standoff between truck companies and safety advocates that has intensified as lawmakers have sought to include provisions about the industry in a highway bill being crafted by Congress.
"The reality is that our roads are already overcrowded with families heading to school and work, and trucks carrying the things we buy across the country," Ribble said in a statement.
Quote"The U.S. population has almost doubled since our Interstate highway system was built, and demand for freight shipping is only going up," he continued. "The SAFE Trucking Act will help us safely move more of the things Americans want with fewer trucks taking up space on the road, and it is based on data to ensure that truck stopping times and pavement wear are as good or better than our current trucks. When we can increase efficiency, decrease traffic, and make everyone safer in the process, that is a win, and the SAFE Trucking Act is able to help us achieve all these objectives."
This sounds ridiculous. Trucks will have to shed tonnage at state borders.
Quote from: Rothman on September 13, 2015, 09:04:10 PM
This sounds ridiculous. Trucks will have to shed tonnage at state borders.
They already have to shed trailers. Some states allow double full size trailers, some allow triple trailers, and the Indiana Toll Road and Ohio Turnpike allow triples as well. Those must be shed before entering Illinois or Pennsylvania.
Congress shirking its constitutional responsibilities to regulate interstate commerce. Perish the thought. :rolleyes:
Quote from: xcellntbuy on September 13, 2015, 09:32:22 PM
Congress shirking its constitutional responsibilities to regulate interstate commerce. Perish the thought. :rolleyes:
I suspect the intent is to get this passed, then have the trucking industry strong-arm states into allowing the higher weight limits one at a time, then come back to Congress, and have the 91,000 pound limit amended to force states to allow them. Years ago, Congress forced states (mostly in the East) to permit double "pup" trailers on Interstates and certain arterial highways.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 13, 2015, 11:08:00 PM
Quote from: xcellntbuy on September 13, 2015, 09:32:22 PM
Congress shirking its constitutional responsibilities to regulate interstate commerce. Perish the thought. :rolleyes:
I suspect the intent is to get this passed, then have the trucking industry strong-arm states into allowing the higher weight limits one at a time, then come back to Congress, and have the 91,000 pound limit amended force states to allow them. Years ago, Congress forced states (mostly in the East) to permit double "pup" trailers on Interstates and certain arterial highways.
That seems a more convoluted route than just getting the Feds to do it themselves the first time around.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 13, 2015, 08:27:05 PM
TheHill.Com: GOP bill would allow states to decide on heavier trucks (http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/253275-gop-bill-would-allow-states-to-decide-on-heavier-trucks)
QuoteThe measure, from Rep. Reid Ribble (R-Wis.), would allow states to decide whether they want to increase a current limit of 80,000 pounds for cargo trucks to 91,000 pounds, which is the level being sought by the trucking industry.
Why 91,000 lbs?
Is the trucking industry willing to pay for the extra wear and tear on the roads or are they going to transfer that cost to the public?
Quote from: GCrites80s on September 14, 2015, 01:29:55 PM
Is the trucking industry willing to pay for the extra wear and tear on the roads or are they going to transfer that cost to the public?
That is a very good question. I would want higher motor fuel taxes on Diesel fuel, and added funding for state weight and safety enforcement as part of any deal to allow higher gross combination weights.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 14, 2015, 08:33:48 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 13, 2015, 08:27:05 PM
TheHill.Com: GOP bill would allow states to decide on heavier trucks (http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/253275-gop-bill-would-allow-states-to-decide-on-heavier-trucks)
QuoteThe measure, from Rep. Reid Ribble (R-Wis.), would allow states to decide whether they want to increase a current limit of 80,000 pounds for cargo trucks to 91,000 pounds, which is the level being sought by the trucking industry.
Why 91,000 lbs?
Dunno. Canada allows 102,515 pounds on
five axles.
Here's a relevant (albeit old) FHWA film (https://archive.org/details/gov.dot.fhwa.ttp.vh-313) about truck impacts on pavements.
I'm less concerned with the specter of raising the overall cap on truck weight as I am about the increased weights bearing on individual axles, which I understand is where the pavement damage is really caused. I'd rather see trucks with more axles but fewer pounds on each.
I've read things from the trucking industry, and I'm pretty sure they claim that they aren't responsible for any damage to any of the roadways as it is now, and it's everyone else's fault (from car drivers to shoddy DOT work).
So good luck trying to get them to pay more for road maintenance in exchange for carrying more weight!!!
I see, the trucking industry basically wants a handout from the taxpayers. Let them put more weight in each truck so they can hire fewer drivers and cause more damage and deterioration to the roads (which the taxpayers are on the hook for). Of course they are not about to start putting more axles on trailers and tractors; that would cost them money. There is no way in hell they will pass any savings on to their drivers. And higher taxes on diesel or permits? No way, man, those will cost "jobs". Actually, the industry would blame the higher tax for the jobs lost due to having fewer trucks on the road to move the same amount of cargo. And since most are too lazy and stupid to look into the numbers themselves, plenty will believe them.
In the end it means shittier roads for the public and more money lining the pockets of a tiny few.
The U.S. seems to be somewhat on the low side of the trucking weights in the developed world that I know of. In most of Europe the standard weight limit is 40 metric tons (88,000 lbs) but most countries allow between 44 and 50 tons (97,000 - 110,000 lbs) without the need for permits, much like Canada. Some countries, mostly in Scandinavia but also part of Germany and the Netherlands, allow longer combination vehicles (sort of like Turnpike Doubles) that can weigh over 60 tons (132,000 lbs) but they have more axles, so the axle load doesn't increase.
As long as the axle load doesn't dramatically increase, the additional impact on pavement would be rather limited. The main problem are bridges. Germany raised its weight limits in 1965 and pretty much all bridges before that time are in urgent need of repair or replacement due to the rapidly deteriorating condition due to truck traffic and poor design. A large number of minor and some major bridges in Germany are closed to trucks due to the poor condition, which includes one of the busiest bridges in the country, causing 20,000 trucks a day to make a detour, adding more stress to alternate bridges which aren't in the best condition either.
The trucking industry currently has a shortage of drivers caused by the fact that they treat their drivers like shit and consequently, nobody wants to be a truck driver. The industry hopes that by forcing the states to allow bigger and heavier trucks on the roadways, that they can deny this reality. What they really need to do is improve working conditions for truck drivers, but the industry is unwilling to do this.
Also: most industries (and politicians) really mean "profits" when they say "jobs". It's best not to get confused.
The shift from actual trucking companies to the preference for truckers to be "independent contractors" has led to the conditions vdeane describes.
I have two friends that drive trucks. If you saw their trucks, you'd assume one worked "for" FedEx and the other "for" Target, but nope. Both are not employees by either company; they're hired as independent contractors so those companies don't have to pay them benefits.
Makes you wonder what would happen if everyone joined the Teamsters. :D
Quote from: vdeane on September 14, 2015, 09:19:38 PM
The trucking industry currently has a shortage of drivers caused by the fact that they treat their drivers like shit and consequently, nobody wants to be a truck driver.
Odd. Kentucky is having trouble keeping highway equipment operators, even with the promise of a retirement pension, guaranteed employment unless you screw up beyond repair, etc., because our CDL holders are becoming truck drivers. They are willing to forego the benefits and the opportunity to be home every night and earn overtime pay because they can make more money as OTR truckers.
I'd love to get a 91k limit in Michigan.
Quote from: Chris on September 14, 2015, 03:40:42 PM
The U.S. seems to be somewhat on the low side of the trucking weights in the developed world that I know of. In most of Europe the standard weight limit is 40 metric tons (88,000 lbs) but most countries allow between 44 and 50 tons (97,000 - 110,000 lbs) without the need for permits, much like Canada. Some countries, mostly in Scandinavia but also part of Germany and the Netherlands, allow longer combination vehicles (sort of like Turnpike Doubles) that can weigh over 60 tons (132,000 lbs) but they have more axles, so the axle load doesn't increase.
As long as the axle load doesn't dramatically increase, the additional impact on pavement would be rather limited. The main problem are bridges. Germany raised its weight limits in 1965 and pretty much all bridges before that time are in urgent need of repair or replacement due to the rapidly deteriorating condition due to truck traffic and poor design. A large number of minor and some major bridges in Germany are closed to trucks due to the poor condition, which includes one of the busiest bridges in the country, causing 20,000 trucks a day to make a detour, adding more stress to alternate bridges which aren't in the best condition either.
Pavement on European highways is vastly different. Bases are much thicker, better oil in the bitumen, different aggregates etc. It can hold up to a lot more weight over time. Obviously, initial construction is much more expensive that way.
Quote from: GCrites80s on September 15, 2015, 08:53:15 PM
Pavement on European highways is vastly different. Bases are much thicker, better oil in the bitumen, different aggregates etc. It can hold up to a lot more weight over time. Obviously, initial construction is much more expensive that way.
Ehh, mebbe. http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/columnists/tom-greenwood/2015/08/21/greenwood-us-europe-road-test/32079531/
I've commuted on that section of I-75, and noticed the visibly poor pavement quality.
Quote from: hbelkins on September 15, 2015, 02:59:48 PM
Odd. Kentucky is having trouble keeping highway equipment operators, even with the promise of a retirement pension, guaranteed employment unless you screw up beyond repair, etc., because our CDL holders are becoming truck drivers. They are willing to forego the benefits and the opportunity to be home every night and earn overtime pay because they can make more money as OTR truckers.
A testament to how poorly Kentucky state government jobs pay.
Quote from: vdeane on September 14, 2015, 09:19:38 PM
The trucking industry currently has a shortage of drivers caused by the fact that they treat their drivers like shit and consequently, nobody wants to be a truck driver. The industry hopes that by forcing the states to allow bigger and heavier trucks on the roadways, that they can deny this reality. What they really need to do is improve working conditions for truck drivers, but the industry is unwilling to do this.
Also: most industries (and politicians) really mean "profits" when they say "jobs". It's best not to get confused.
Points are correct.
I would deal with this the same way that at least some toll road agencies handle it - in order to drive a "turnpike double" (a tractor with two 48 foot trailer units, as allowed on roads like the New York State Thruway and Ohio Turnpike) a driver needs to have several years satisfactory driving experience with CDL Class "A" (five axles in a tractor and trailer) combinations.
Upper management at the trucking companies want more money. One way to get it is by cutting labor costs. With bigger trucks carrying more freight, they won't need as many truckers. I hope this goes nowhere. We need more regulation of the trucking industry as it is, not less.