Legislation to increase weight loads has merit ROAD WARRIOR

A way to reduce even more fuel useage and get more trucks off the road is shipping more cargo by rail instead of truck. Its one of the most efficent methods per ton of cargo and much more efficent than the typical "18 wheeler" when moving cargo long distances.

Safety?- 18-wheelers frequently tailgate passenger vehicles who are going 'too slow'-- when the truck wants to stay at 15+ mph over the speed limit. Increasing the weight limit will make this even more dangerous -- and even more intimidating for cars.

Road maintenance?- Most damage to roads is done by heavy trucks. Especially in PA construction standards are so poor that roads fall apart quicker than in other states where requirements or inspections are tighter. Increasing the weight limit will make this problem worse.

Paying their share?- Big rigs pay far less than their fair share, and the proposed increase in fees probably would not even pay for the extra damage. Take tolls for example: if truck were paying their fair share, the truck toll would be far, far higher than it is.

And to top it all off, trucks get to use subsiditzed infrastructure, while the much more efficient rail does not.

All in all, this is a VERY BAD IDEA!

The most eficient method is by rail between major cities that have a rail yard. Use trucks between the rail yard and the end points. This would ressult in even fewer trucks on the roads.....

I read somewhere that 90+ percent of damage to roads is from heavy trucks. This is only going to make it worse.

Use more rail shipping and build more junk closer to where it is used so less trucking.

Require these trucks to operate video cameras and save the data to "black boxes" much like police cars do.

That way we'll see if they're tailgating or otherwise behaving unsafely.

My concern is that the extra weight creates extra momentum, which means worse things happen when a truck becomes out of control.

Dan, this is a BAD idea! Period. But then, like usual, the special interest groups who donate to the politicians reelection campaign will generally get what they want.

And the cost's to add these extra wheels to the trailers will only be passed onto the customers and therefore result in higher prices to consumers. Nobody wins.

Pretty much the same as all the preceding comments, plus -
20 per cent more weight in the same length = 20 per cent increase in the loads on the bridges. Wonder how the bridge structural engineers feel about that ? NONE of the current bridges were or are designed for that kind of loading. We already have serious problems with too many deteriorated bridges and paying for the upgrades/ replacements - this will only worsen and accelerate that problem. Anybody really think we need more collapses like the I-35 bridge in Minnesota 2 years ago ?

And - will the truckers now pay 20 per cent more in fuel, license, and other taxes to compensate for the added road damage, and share their benefit ? Somehow that 800 dollars extra per year seems like nowhere near enough. What this really amounts to is yet another ''cross-subsidy'' of the trucking industry by the smaller vehicles and society in general.

Sure, we pay one way or another - in either higher trucking costs or greater road damage and repair costs - but it would be better for the trucks that cause the damage to directly bear and pay for the full cost of it, and then allocate that cost among their users, instead of passing the bill on to the rest of us.

I also question how many truckloads ''gross out''= reach maximum allowed weight - such as stone trucks - before they ''cube out''= fill the trailer. Those are the only ones who would benefit from this. A ltogether, this reeks of being a true bill to favor a narrow ''special interest group'' at the expense of the rest of us.

Finally, if this passes, it should be allowed only for trucks with a local haul of less than 100 or 200 miles. Anything longer on that should go by train. As the current ads by CSX point out, a train can haul 1 ton of freight 436 miles on a gallon of diesel fuel, on average. Note too - that's per ton of cargo, and is a 'fair' and 'true' statistic because it also includes the fully-allocated fuel needed to haul the gross weight of the railcar - including the 'tare' weight of the railcar that's hauling the cargo, plus the return empty move. Since no truck can approach that kind of fuel economy - it would be the equivalent of about 20 MPG for a truck, which at best can do 6 to 10 MPG for this kind of service - we'd all be better off in so many ways if this idea was killed or severely limited and restricted.

And can you imagine one of those "SMART" cars being hit by one of those heavier trucks? They are barely survivable when hit by an SUV. And what happens in the next few years when the automakers all release small cars that are supposed to be great on gas? Smaller cars and Bigger trucks are not a good combination.

I don't think I would mind too much IF they lowered the speed limit for all tractor trailers to 55 and only allowed them in the right lane on four lane divided highways. This would make them safer and increase fuel efficiency. I can dream can't I?

This bill is insanity.
A truck hurtling down the highway at to often way over the speed limit is a disaster to the road surface.
The engines may be good enough to haul those loads but there isn't a braking system in the worlds that will stop them at a safe distance.
These trucks are still using Drum brakes for Pete's sake.
Disc brakes have been available for over 30 years but the company's won't pay the extra cost for them.
Also Brake-by-wire system has been used in Europe for awhile. American Truck Manufactures won't install it because of lawsuits the risk of potential lawsuits.
They can play dumb in court but if it became available they would be sued every time a brake related lawsuit appeared in court. The reasoning being that if the technology was available and not used, the manufacturer is at fault.
Even with these improvements,though, a 97,000 lb. truck driven at 70 or 80 miles per hour is an instrument of death.

Speaky2k wrote:

And can you imagine one of those "SMART" cars being hit by one of those heavier trucks? They are barely survivable when hit by an SUV. And what happens in the next few years when the automakers all release small cars that are supposed to be great on gas? Smaller cars and Bigger trucks are not a good combination.

A Smart car couldn't survive being hit by a Ford F-150 pick-up truck.
These big rigs wouldn't leave any evidence that the Smart car even existed.

Did you even read the article??? All of the facts sited in the above comments are covered with the exception of rail service. While I agree rail service should be utilized whenever possible it is just logistially impossible to "replace" tractor trailers with rail service. These trucks would be required to add a sixth axel to evenly distribute the weight as is currently being done. Therefore there would be NO additional wear on the current road surfaces. There would be less trucks on the road so wear would actually diminish. Many truckers are already "overloading" and taking the chance of being caught at a weigh station as many loads are based on weight not distance. Increase the fines on offenders of these six axel vehicles and there would be no reason to tempt fate. Structural engineers are already incorporating over-tolerance factors in to all on the road/bridge designs currently on the drawing board and in place. As a side note all new vehicles in production, commercial or private (including your car) have black boxes for accident investigation and many of the larger trucking companies have GPS tracking of their vehicles to ensure drivers do not drive too long before a rest period. This includes an actual shut down mode which will not allow the truck to move for a set period of time unless the driver rests.

Being a former truck driver,now retired, I cannot see any justification in increasing the allowed weights of the semis on our poorly constructed roads. We complain about the road conditions and increasing the weights on those roads isn't going to improve them. What has to be done first is to see that the roads are properly constructed. Given the money that is spent on them they should be lasting longer than they are. Its time to clean up the corruption in the construction industry.

RFL wrote:

I don't think I would mind too much IF they lowered the speed limit for all tractor trailers to 55 and only allowed them in the right lane on four lane divided highways. This would make them safer and increase fuel efficiency. I can dream can't I?

WOW, You must be an Penn Dot engineer!! Put a Speed limit of 55 and restrict them to the right lane.. Hmmm I guess ALL the on/off ramps will now be moved to the left lanes due to the fact them you'll be B!TCHIN you can't get ON or OFF the highway due to the trucks blocking up the right lane.. Oh yeah that sure would be safer furthermore 97,000lbs trucks will use MORE fuel PINHEAD....

Do us all a favor "THINK BEFORE YOU COMMENT"...

Railroads wrote:

The most eficient method is by rail between major cities that have a rail yard. Use trucks between the rail yard and the end points. This would ressult in even fewer trucks on the roads.....

While Yes indeed this is a more efficient route to move trailers. EXAMPLE: 100 units in on the train..You would still need 100 trucks to move those units at the end points and points between.. Trains do not go everywhere..
In actuality you really are not utilizing less trucks/power..
If you really wanted to use less power units on the roads you could pull doubles/triples BUT Imagine the headaches that would ensue with 2 or 3 53ft trailers being pulled by 1 truck and then you'd be looking at a combined weight of over approx.. 175,000lbs+ try to stop that one.. NO THANKS..

Cmon People wrote:

[snip] These trucks would be required to add a sixth axel to evenly distribute the weight as is currently being done. Therefore there would be NO additional wear on the current road surfaces. There would be less trucks on the road so wear would actually diminish.

This is so BoguS. More weight in the same distance is more weight. Tell you what - let me stamp on your foot 5 times, and then see if you think that a 6th time wouldn't matter.

Cmon People wrote:

Structural engineers are already incorporating over-tolerance factors in to all on the road/bridge designs currently on the drawing board and in place.

Also BoguS. Those 'factors or margins of safety' are simply to account for unknowns, stress concentrations and impacts, the effects of combined loadings, and misc. risks - not deliberate overloads. If you know so much, then tell us what new design loading has replaced the long-standing - 30-plus years - AASHTO HS20-44 load, and exactly how it includes or allows for 97K trucks - bet you can't.

Oh My wrote:

<quoted text>
WOW, You must be an Penn Dot engineer!! Put a Speed limit of 55 and restrict them to the right lane.. Hmmm I guess ALL the on/off ramps will now be moved to the left lanes due to the fact them you'll be B!TCHIN you can't get ON or OFF the highway due to the trucks blocking up the right lane.. Oh yeah that sure would be safer furthermore 97,000lbs trucks will use MORE fuel PINHEAD....
Do us all a favor "THINK BEFORE YOU COMMENT"...

Hum - interesting that was never a problem before when the limit was 55 for trucks (before the truck lobby pushed it through to be 65) and somehow having the trucks in the right lane in most European countries doesn't seem to be a problem either.

The insanity grows!

Why not just eliminate car traffic completely and turn the whole highway system over to the lane-hogging, overweight trucks?

The trucking industry propaganda has always been that THEY pay for the roads. The truth is that there would be NO trucking industry if the taxpayers had not footed the bill for the interstate system. But now the truckers figure they own it all and can self-regulate.

They have some basis for this move---currently the weight of trucks passing through this area are rarely checked. Time after time, one passes the new million-dollar truck-scale facilities on I-78 only to see them "Closed". In fact the westward "closed" sign is so over-used already that half of it is out.

It is time for those of us who must share the road with this out-of-control industry to draw the line. Slow them to 55, keep them in the right-hand lane and keep the weight limits where they are or lower them.

West End Resident wrote:

<quoted text>
Also BoguS. Those 'factors or margins of safety' are simply to account for unknowns, stress concentrations and impacts, the effects of combined loadings, and misc. risks - not deliberate overloads. If you know so much, then tell us what new design loading has replaced the long-standing - 30-plus years - AASHTO HS20-44 load, and exactly how it includes or allows for 97K trucks - bet you can't.

More details - HS20-44 is a truck with a gross weight of 72,000 lbs.- 8,000 lbs. LESS THAN the CURRENT maximum allowed standard truck gross weight of 80,000 lbs. There is also an H25 loading, but that is only 25 per cent more = 86,400 lbs., still 10,600 lbs. LESS than the proposed 97,000 lbs. So it's clear that current bridges and roadways can't safely accomodate the proposed truck weights. But no one in the truck lobby mentioned that, did they.