Friday - February 03, 2012

Truck U

A House committee passed a measure Thursday maintaining current tractor-trailer sizes and weights for three years until a study can be completed on the potential costs incurred by allowing longer and heavier trucks on U.S. roads.
...
The original legislation, which includes authorizing about $260 billion over five years for federal highway programs,contained a controversial provision allowing heavier tractor-trailer trucks on highways by increasing the federal weight limit from 80,000 pounds to 97,000 pounds. In some cases, it would have allowed 126,000-pound trucks onto highways.
...
The legislation also would allow the largest rigs, which comprise two and sometimes three trailers, to be as much as 10 feet longer—a total length of more than 100 feet.

“All trips begin and end on local roads. The cost of fixing these roads is in the hands of local taxpayers. Heavier trucks will damage local roads, which are not built to handle the extra weight,” said Rep. Lou Barletta, R-Pennsylvania, who offered the amendment with Rep. Jerry Costello, D-Illinois.

“Local roads will become potholed, buckled, and broken much more quickly. They will need to be repaired and replaced sooner, and the cost for that will fall squarely on local governments and local taxpayers,” Barletta said in a statement.

But the Coalition for Transportation Productivity said this is a matter that has already been studied and it’s time to put heavier trucks on the road.

“It really is ‘Groundhog Day’ today because this very committee asked the Transportation Research Board to study this same issue back in 1998, and the Board strongly endorsed truck weight reform,” said CTP Executive Director John Runyan in a statement.

“There is no need to commit further study to this truck weight proposal. Voluminous academic research and practical on-the-ground experience has proven that states should have the option to put more productive, six-axle trucks on interstates.

The plain truth is that we have become a nation of trucks. We don’t use the railroads for anywhere near as much hauling as we once did. Trucks have the advantage of carrying your goods right to your door, instead of having to take another truck and go down to the RR depot to get your stuff. But today’s trucks are hard pressed to carry as much as it does. There is a strong need for more trucks and for bigger trucks. Another 15-60% load won’t change their mpg all that much; in the long run it is less expensive to carry more on fewer trips than it is to carry the current amount on more trips. And the government just put a stop to that idea. One more way this administration is (pardon the trucking pun) putting the brakes on any economic recovery.

It really is as simple as doing some basic arithmetic. An 18 wheeler tractor trailer distributes the load amongst 16 wheels. A 3 axle trailer would have 12 wheels; connected to the same tractor you’d get a 22 wheeler with 20 wheels carrying the load. Heavy load tractors already exist that have a 4th axle on the tractor that can be lowered to put 2 more wheels down on the road. That’s a 24 wheeler, with 22 wheels doing the hauling. Each tire has a set of brakes I believe, so the more tires you use the more braking you can achieve.

Current 80,000lb maximum load ÷ 16 wheels = 5000lb per wheel.

Suggested 97,000lb maximum load ÷ 20 wheels = 4850lb per wheel. The 3 axle trailers put 3% less weight on the road per wheel, and it’s the load per wheel that matters.

Suggested 126,000lb jumbo maximum load ÷ 20 wheels = 63000lb per wheel, a 23% increase over what the 18 wheelers haul around right now. Terrible. Bad bad bad. Is there any way out? Maybe. Let’s try it with a 4 axle tractor:

Suggested 126,000lb jumbo maximum load ÷ 22 wheels = 5727lb per wheel, which is still 15% more weight per wheel than what we see on the highways every day. Maybe we should go with a bit less weight?

Alternate 110,000lb jumbo maximum load ÷ 22 wheels = 5000lb per wheel. This is a 37.5% load increase over today’s 18 wheelers, but it has the exact same wheel loading as they do. Solution 1!

Alternate 100,000lb maximum load ÷ 20 wheels = 5000lb per wheel. This is a 20% load increase over today’s 18 wheelers, using today’s regular tractors and a 3 axle trailer, but it has the exact same wheel loading as current 18 wheelers do. Solution 2!

I think I just saved the government 3 years and many millions of dollars. They can cut me a check for 5% of the projected study cost, thanks. In the meantime they can throw some money at Goodyear to come up with a recap truck tire that stays together better. We have “tire-gators” all up and down the highways. I’ve seen them blow and have had to dodge the flying 100lb chunks of smoking rubber. No fun there at all. There has to be a better way to build a truck tire.

Ok, I’m not a fan of the triple trailer concept. I’ve never actually seen one, but they have those “road train” things out in the outback of Australia. More power to them, and perhaps they could be Ok here in the USA in the farm belt, where there is almost no other highway traffic. We have tandem rigs here in NJ, and that’s already quite a lot of truck, even though both trailers are of the shorter variety (40 or 45 feet I think, whereas large single trailers are up to 53 feet). Two 45s is already 90 feet, plus rig. Would a 53 and a 45 for a total of 98 feet plus rig be all that much different? I don’t think so.

Of course, one solution would be to only use trucks for source to hub and hub to destination haulage, and use trains for hub to hub. They are far more efficient on a per pound basis. Pity we let most of our railroads go to wrack and ruin 50+ years ago, and then built suburbia where the tracks used to be. Railroad freight cars are rated to carry 263,000lb, which is more than the weight of two of the suggested 97,000lb capacity trailers AND at least one of their tractors.

Posted by Drew458     on 02/03/2012 at 01:31 PM   
Filed Under: • planes, trains, tanks, ships, machines, automobiles •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner