Eastern Railroad Discussion > Do we need bigger and bigger trucks?

The NY Times has an article today looking at the lobbying behind efforts to allow bigger and heavier trucks on interstate and other highways. Both the trucking industry and the rail industry have lobbyists flooding the hill with supporters.

The article starts with a retired South Carolina highway trooper who heads a law enforcement safety coalition. Although he lobbies on the Hill as a trooper, his organization is partly supported by rail interests.  The article mentions the rail business believes it could lose $6 billion annually to larger trucks. The trucking industry counters that its expansion would reduce accidents, and that's where the troopers and sheriffs enter the picture.
NYT

>>Each side has marshaled facts to buttress its argument. The trucking
industry says longer or heavier trucks would mean fewer trucks on the
road, actually reducing accidents. The rail industry has data suggesting
that bigger trucks cause more accidents and do more damage to roads.What stands out in this transportation battle is how law enforcement
officers are being used as lobbying surrogates to make contradictory
arguments in the name of public safety.And those highly unusual tactics are already having consequences. After
inquiries from The New York Times, Mr. Latimer was forced out from his
post at the National Troopers Coalition.But both sides are using tactics that could be seen as deceptive. The
railroad industry, through an organization called Coalition Against
Bigger Trucks, has paid the airfare and hotel bills for Mr. Latimer, a
retired South Carolina state trooper, to come to Washington, and it has
done the same for police chiefs, state troopers and sheriffs from states
including Michigan, Ohio and Texas. It even put Mr. Latimer on its
payroll, compensating him nearly $70,000 a year.<<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/02/us/politics/trucking-and-rail-industries-turn-state-troopers-into-unwitting-lobbyists.html?ref=us&amp;_r=0

F N ! The problems with 53 foot trailers and 80 foot total length (same as a centerbeam flatcar) Is that they have to get off the Interstates and onto local often two lane  roads and streets to make their deliveries, and the 53 footers do not fit now . several times a week on my local drives I have to stop while some trucker has to back his 53ft trailer and 80 foot length into a space that was designed for 35 ft delivery trucks! I do not really think most truck drivers want longer or heavier rigs, with today's traffic and shipping demands they are under enough stress anyway. More weight or tandems is even worse, the highways are crumbling now and State and Federal Govt's have done little to fund improvements.

Truck drivers have varying skill levels...I watch rookie drivers take several tries to back a 53 foot trailer into our loading dock at work which is not a terribly difficult dock to do...One driver got out and told us 'He can't do it'...but finally did...Other drivers come and line the trailer in on the first or second try.....

The roads are clogged enough with trucks...Longer trucks will be even tougher to maneuver...and heavier loads will place more demand onto the braking and other mechanical systems on the trucks...Dave W.

Posted from Android



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/01/15 14:15 by dwi189.

In some cases, the highway departments or bridge agencies have to post inspectors to assure that particularly sensitive low weight bridges aren't violated.

The ancient "free" bridges across the Delaware River [in NJ and PA] come immediately to mind. Lambertville, Riegelsville, Phillipsburg look very attractive in place of a $50 toll on the modern bridges.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/01/15 15:55 by Lackawanna484.

I don't think heavier trucks or longer trucks is a good idea at all. I am a truck driver and I know I wouldn't want to drive sometging longer then I do now. Most cities are older in design and are the roads not big truck friendly. There are a lot of people driving trucks who shouldn't, someone touched on varying skill levels, it's true, some drivers are real good, while some are terrible..

Posted from iPhone

"The trucking  industry says longer or heavier trucks would mean fewer trucks on the road, actually reducing accidents."

Initially there would be fewer trucks. But the trucking companies will use the efficiency of a larger truck to reduce freight rates. Manufacturers' traffic managers are business people before being a railfan, if at all and they will use whichever mode saves them money. If the trucking freights rates go down there will be more trucks on roads moving business they have taken from the railroads.  

I forgot to mention that heavier loaded trucks would only create more of a beating to roads and bridges...I can remember Route 80 in Pennsylvania 20 or 30 years ago pretty much beat to shreds from the truck traffic...Trucks pounded the pavement down to the point where the road was not level from one expansion joint to the next...and you'd bounce up and down due to the difference in height between each concrete section between expansion joints....Riding in the passing lane would be a somewhat smoother ride. Rte 78 and 81 in PA were not much better.

Rte 80 has been repaved for much of its length in PA since then...but give it time and truck traffic will beat it up once again...Dave W.

Posted from Android

Michigan has had LCV's for years,
http://m.truckinginfo.com/blogpost/179084/michigan-trains-productive-and-safe-with-a-flaming-exception-years-ago
they also are allowed on certain routes on the Ohio side of the line too.

Posted from iPhone

Here in Ohio they are considering raising the weight limit from 80,000lbs to 90,000lbs on the interstates. The idea is if trucks can carry more freight than there would be less on the roads, just like longer freight trains mean need less trains

Posted from iPhone

Hell No. They just want to beat up the roads more, so they can keep the gas tax steady.

The trucking and highway construction people are a big part of the problem in this country. They gush on and on about free enterprise as they lap at the trough of highway funding. Meanwhile, many trucking companies stick it to the drivers at every turn, and they are way too cutthroat with each other as well.

Railroads are figuring out how to turn a profit on shorter intermodal moves. That is what we need to encourage. In the meantime, 53' and 40 tons is plenty.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/02/15 03:58 by NYC6001.

The Interstate highways are already being re-built to accommodate the larger trucks. Anytime a portion of a highway is rebuilt note the difference in lane sizes and bridge heights along with increased load bearing capacity. I-75 through Ohio such as in Lima, Dayton and Cincinnati come to mind as the road is being completely reconstructed to the new standards.

Well way out here in the west (except California) we run trucks up to 105,500 pounds with no problems. Eight axles spread the weight enough that the pressure on the road way is the same as an 80,000 truck with five axles. Of course we have a little more room to maneuver. I have driven these large cars and triples for years and don't find any problems with them. Example, in California which is limited to 80,000 pounds, you haul 9.000 gallons of fuel to a service station. In Washington we haul 11,000 gallons. 2,000 gallons more. so I make fewer trips to a service station. Hence less time on the road. But after seeing a truck stuck trying to turn at an intersection in Gettysburg while on vacation (I could see the problem and got traffic moved to allow him to turn), there are certainly some places in the east that this wouldn't work.
Lynn

Captain92 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well way out here in the west (except California)
> we run trucks up to 105,500 pounds with no
> problems. Eight axles spread the weight enough
> that the pressure on the road way is the same as
> an 80,000 truck with five axles. Of course we have
> a little more room to maneuver. I have driven
> these large cars and triples for years and don't
> find any problems with them. Example, in
> California which is limited to 80,000 pounds, you
> haul 9.000 gallons of fuel to a service station.
> In Washington we haul 11,000 gallons. 2,000
> gallons more. so I make fewer trips to a service
> station. Hence less time on the road. But after
> seeing a truck stuck trying to turn at an
> intersection in Gettysburg while on vacation (I
> could see the problem and got traffic moved to
> allow him to turn), there are certainly some
> places in the east that this wouldn't work.
> Lynn

The use of these very long trailers on local deliveries and local roads is a major issue in NJ.  Guys get hung up on very tight turns, or signs / light stanchions block a full radius. I don't know whether it's bad software for the maps, or people driving where they shouldn't, but you see it all the time.

I think the answer to competing more with domestic trucking requires a greater motivation than has so far been seen on any railroad; even on some long distance routes like NS's 'Crescent Corridor' touted two years back as having great promise. Think out of the box. Even if you have average 6500 foot sidings you can still move 30 articulated All Purpose 53ft well cars with a loco on each end, or 180 domestic cons per train. On NS's 'Crescent Corridor' the initial inhibitor was the Memphis intermodal terminal, but it has since been expanded. But could two DPU equipped units move such a fully loaded train over the whole route? I bet radial truck AC's could. Each unit should face cab end outward from each end of the consist and both crew members should be engineer qualified. That way if some termial is not a straightforward move it would expedite the move, or set offs and pick ups. Living with the existing siding limitation NS could still have a capacity to move over 700 cons a day (off I-81) between Harrisburg and Chattanooga. at least because there are not many other trains run from Northern Virginia to Northwest Alabama.  If you  exceed the capacity on segements sometime in the future, then talk about capital expenditures for siding extensions. (Shorter trains are faster on hilly, curvy routes). But enter the market with what you have, right now!. Shuttle intermodal type trains have been tried in the past, and failed. But they did not have de-regulation of truck competitive traffic, powerful AC and DC locos with DPU, two man crews and long crew pools,  and double stack capability on most routes