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

[Missourian]

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.

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?

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]

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]

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.

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?

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.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

Senators Introduce Bill to Boost Truck Weights





Four U.S. senators have introduced legislation to allow states to increase truck weights to 97,000 pounds.


The Safe and Efficient Transportation Act, S 747, represents the renewal of a failed effort to get the same bill passed last year. Sens. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio), sponsored the legislation.


A companion bill, H.R. 763, was introduced in the House in February.


The Coalition for Transportation Productivity, a carrier and shipper group that includes American Trucking Associations, described the bill as “a carefully crafted proposal that gives each state the option to selectively raise interstate weight limits.”

Senators Introduce Bill to Boost Truck Weights | Transport Topics Online | Trucking, Freight Transportation and Logistics News

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.

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]

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

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.

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.

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]

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]

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

 

[M14 Shooter]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.