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

[Missourian]

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.

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.

Who needs to worry about money?

Is the printer broken?

Alright, you got me.


I think you are being disingenuous.

Are you just stirring the pot?

 

[Big Fitz]

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.

Who needs to worry about money?

Is the printer broken?

Alright, you got me.


I think you are being disingenuous.

Are you just stirring the pot?

No... no stir teh pots...

I kick teh babby.

 

[editec]

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.

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.

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?

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]

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.

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]

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.

Who needs to worry about money?

Is the printer broken?

Alright, you got me.


I think you are being disingenuous.

Are you just stirring the pot?

NOOOOOOOOO!!!!

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

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

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

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?

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]

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

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?

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.

Morons in Utah?

You Dissin' Harry Reid?

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

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

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.

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

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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?

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]

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.

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

 

[Synthaholic]

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?

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.

Morons in Utah?

You Dissin' Harry Reid?

Exhibit A: Harry Reid is from Nevada!

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

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?

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.

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]

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.

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

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

 

[Big Fitz]

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

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.

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

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

 

[The T]

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.

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

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

 

[Missourian]

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]

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]

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]

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.