New transportation bill creates safety concerns over bigger rigs

scottyk · Feb 2, 2012

From CNN

Could tractor-trailer rigs almost as long as Boeing 737s be driving on a highway near you? If a new transportation bill proposed by House Republicans passes, the answer is yes, and the safety ramifications would be astronomical, say congressional opponents of the bill and the AAA Auto Club.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/01/travel/big-trucks/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

greg334 · Feb 2, 2012

Don't you love CNN?

mjmsprt40 · Feb 2, 2012

They already have huge trucks with lots and lots of axles in Michigan. I wonder how their roads are holding up, and what the safety record of those enormous trucks actually is. The Michigan DOT should have some information, I would think. I see them on Int. 94, and while 94 isn't the best road in the nation it's not the worst either.

Greg, you live there according to your location-- how about it? Think you might find something on those huge trucks?

moose · Feb 2, 2012

here Y'a go :

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/01/4231041/truckers-oppose-longer-and-heavier.html

http://www.landlinemag.com/Story.aspx?StoryID=22133

a more informed news releases about LHV.
don't know about you guys, but i called all of my reps, yesterday.

greg334 · Feb 2, 2012

mjmsprt40 said:
Greg, you live there according to your location-- how about it? Think you might find something on those huge trucks?

Well first the roads are not holding up.

The high weight limits were imposed for two reasons, one was the steel haulers who ran between the steel mills and the auto companies and other manufacturers. They would have several rolls on a trailer and maybe go four miles on average but that changed. I learned how to drive a truck by driving steel between plants a long time ago - this was when you could get away with it. The other group is the construction industry where they ran dual trailers, called Michigan Trains. Many of those drivers are the cowboys which I grew to hate, not because the size of the truck but because they always thought they owned the road and the really bad idiots would not clean their trucks after they dumped their load so they would scatter rocks and break windsheilds - you do know they have to pay for your deductable in this state?

Now one reason we have a problem in this state is because there is no real national standard, I think we build roads at 8 inches thick when they should be 12 inches thick or pretty much four more inches than what we average. The road bed is also a problem, our standard is poor and if anyone travels south bound I75 between mile marker 26 and 25 (I think that's where this is at), in the center lane there is a sink hole - again - that is caused by poor road bed preping and improper materials. The same goes for the spot before the bridge on north I75, there is a spot that has been a problem for 10 years and they won't fix it.

The other reason is we collect enough in taxes to maintain the roads but we use it for other things, like say road side attractions (those trees that seem to always get run over even though they are at the top of the embankment) or if anyone drives on Davison, the pedestrian crossing zones which has the $10,000 solar crossing warning signs that people have been knocking down and selling for scrap. IF we increase the truck weight, this means that the taxes can't keep up and unlike the past where we would dip into city collected business taxes, we can't because we have no businesses that we tax or we give companies like GM tax breaks which kill us in other ways.

mjmsprt40 · Feb 2, 2012

greg334 said:
Well first the roads are not holding up.

The high weight limits were imposed for two reasons, one was the steel haulers who ran between the steel mills and the auto companies and other manufacturers. They would have several rolls on a trailer and maybe go four miles on average but that changed. I learned how to drive a truck by driving steel between plants a long time ago - this was when you could get away with it. The other group is the construction industry where they ran dual trailers, called Michigan Trains. Many of those drivers are the cowboys which I grew to hate, not because the size of the truck but because they always thought they owned the road and the really bad idiots would not clean their trucks after they dumped their load so they would scatter rocks and break windsheilds - you do know they have to pay for your deductable in this state?

Now one reason we have a problem in this state is because there is no real national standard, I think we build roads at 8 inches thick when they should be 12 inches thick or pretty much four more inches than what we average. The road bed is also a problem, our standard is poor and if anyone travels south bound I75 between mile marker 26 and 25 (I think that's where this is at), in the center lane there is a sink hole - again - that is caused by poor road bed preping and improper materials. The same goes for the spot before the bridge on north I75, there is a spot that has been a problem for 10 years and they won't fix it.

The other reason is we collect enough in taxes to maintain the roads but we use it for other things, like say road side attractions (those trees that seem to always get run over even though they are at the top of the embankment) or if anyone drives on Davison, the pedestrian crossing zones which has the $10,000 solar crossing warning signs that people have been knocking down and selling for scrap. IF we increase the truck weight, this means that the taxes can't keep up and unlike the past where we would dip into city collected business taxes, we can't because we have no businesses that we tax or we give companies like GM tax breaks which kill us in other ways.

OK, that's what I was looking for. Bigger and heavier is a bad idea, even if it's a Michigan Train set-up. Imagine those things nationwide---.

cableguymn · Feb 2, 2012

Not to mention the snow/ice factor..

80,000 sliding at you.. bad..
180,000 sliding at you.. really bad..
280,000 sliding at you... make peace with your maker....

pearlpro · Feb 2, 2012

The Short drive from Detroit down to the Toledo Loop is akin to being on a Dirt bike going over Logs, That road is a shambles and its quite evident the reason, ROADTRAINS...Now Im not against companies moving there Bulk goods, I used to drive Oversize Coils on a Lowboy trailer, But the repeated trips of Iron Ore, and Materials has left the road a test track for shock absorbers, and worse. I believe theres a place for these vehicles but Lanes should have been designated for them alone...

greg334 · Feb 2, 2012

Pearl you know that there is a part of 75 that was completely rebuilt from the road bed up and that lasted 8 months before the port holes were taking out tires on my pickup.

chefdennis · Feb 3, 2012

The Heavier Truck part of the Bill has been pulled:

http://www.ttnews.com/articles/base...utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=newsletter

FIS53 · Feb 3, 2012

In Ontario they are experimenting with double trailer trains. Currently used for line haul betweeen terminals they have actually started to reduce some companies number of rigs on the 401 between Ontario and Quebec. I haven't seen any major accidents involving these rigs but that is a matter of time especially in the Kingston area (lots of icing). Does reducing the number of tractors make a difference? Yes in fuel costs and possibly in other areas as well so I see this test turning into full time reality with more companies following. There are restrictions on these trains like no rush hour travel through Toronto and such but the companies have worked around that.
Alberta and some other jurisdictions have allowed long combination vehicles for years and it appears to be a growing trend especially in some circles where the argument is to reduce the number of trucks on the road.

pearlpro · Feb 3, 2012

The ATA's response to the Part of the bill about Heavier trucks being layed over,,

"Finally, it is disappointing that the Committee voted to prevent the operation of safer, more efficient trucks on our nation's highways. There have already been hundreds of studies that show increasing truck productivity reduces truck miles traveled, which not only reduces accident risk, congestion and emissions, but also will ultimately save money in reduced highway maintenance costs. We hope that Congress will see that wasting taxpayer money on further study is not necessary and as this legislation moves forward, enacts these long overdue reforms."

Greg, I didnt know that, Ive been up there Last in November and the roads were pretty darn rough, I run that route north and south outta Detroit, down to Kentucky etc and when we hit that Kentucky Border its like youve actually taken off and your wheels dont touch the ground...

Im sure the Larger companies want to run Longer Trains, Doubles, even Triples but the excess weight over repeated use is whats at Issue, The Ups, Yellow and Such are safe carriers, theyve proved that and its not in question, Its the result of 100,000 lb trucks will do to a roadbed, Bridge or Interstate that I see as the Issue. Its hard to refute what the end result is when you see that road with its Road Trains, Safely operated but wearing the road out, accelerating the damage of Loading/Unloading, wear and tear.