Transportation Bill Could Affect California Trucks. Load increase to 97,000 lbs.

[Mexican Trucks Not Safe]

http://www.ksee24.com/news/video/Triple-Trailers---MKR-
138524929.html

A new piece of legislation is gaining speed in Washington, D.C.
If it passes, it could put heavier trucks on California's
highways.

Zeke Chagolla spends most of his days on the road. He's allowed
to pull 80,000 lbs of goods. Congress may approve a law to
increase that load to 97,000 lbs.

Chagolla says California bridges and roads can't handle the
extra pounds. He also says, "How many times do you see people
running down the grape vine smoking their breaks? That's with
45,000 lbs of weight. I think it's more dangerous all the way
around."

Not everyone agrees. Justin Peterslie says drivers aren't going
to notice an extra axle. He believes bigger loads means more
business. He says, "We'd probably be able to lower prices
because we are moving more commodities everywhere."

The American Trucking association also supports the legislation.

Representatives say heavier trucks would mean fewer trucks on
the road. They say that means fewer accidents.

Darrin Roth is the Director of Highway Operations for American
Trucking Association. He says, "We'll burn less fuel. Which
obviously results in fewer emissions. And we'll bring the cost
of freight transportation down which is a benefit to the entire
economy."

A Fresno police officer is in DC fighting against this bill. He
say's heavier trucks will put people in danger. Congress will
vote on the legislation on Thursday.

[richard]

On 3 Feb 2012 07:05:06 -0000, Mexican Trucks Not Safe wrote:

> http://www.ksee24.com/news/video/Triple-Trailers---MKR-
> 138524929.html
>
> A new piece of legislation is gaining speed in Washington, D.C.
> If it passes, it could put heavier trucks on California's
> highways.

This has been in the works since the early 90's.
I bleieve it was in 2002, the new weight law would have gone into effect
allowing trucks to carry 92,000 pounds as they do in Europe.
But cry babies killed that idea.

Michigan allows up to 8 axles at 20,000 pounds per axle.
Several states allow 36,000 pounds per tandem.

If a trucker is smokin his brakes down little old grapevine, then the
driver is an asshole or he has brake problems. Which is why the speed limit
is posted at 35mph downhill.

As a trucker, I've been over most of the major mountain passes and not once
had any problems. Including wolf creek pass in the winter.

[Brent]

On 2012-02-03, richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> This has been in the works since the early 90's.
> I bleieve it was in 2002, the new weight law would have gone into effect
> allowing trucks to carry 92,000 pounds as they do in Europe.
> But cry babies killed that idea.

The roads in the USA aren't built to handle that kind of pounding. The
difference between the construction of say a German autobahn and the US
interstate is considerable. At the very least it would require different
trailers to mitigate the extra pounding which I doubt the trucking
companies want to shell out for. Likely the costs will be passed on to
passenger vehicle drivers and taxpayers in general.

[George Conklin]

"Brent" <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jggrq1$kkb$1...@dont-email.me...

Even now a legally-loaded 18 wheeler causes 9,000 times more road wear than
a car does.

[Jordon]

Mexican Trucks Not Safe wrote:

There's only 166 pounds difference between 80,000 pounds on 5 axles
and 97,000 pounds on 6. And the difference is spread over 6 axles.
Here in Washington we routinely do 105,500 pounds on 8 axles which
is less weight per axle than 80,000 on 5.

And with more axles, come more brakes.

[Jordon]

My calculator skills are a little lacking this morning. Make that
166 pounds per axle.

[richard]

if that were true, then the roads would need to be replaced every two years
or sooner.
There is a stretch of I-80 in Nebraska made entirely of used tires.
It hasn't seen any maintenance since it was built over 20 years ago.

Most bridges today are built to withstand probably double the weight of a
truck.

[richard]

Subtracting 20,000 for the front axle, leaves us with 77,000.
68,000 for the four axles as it is now.
Difference of 9,000.
divided by four, equals 2,250 pounds.
your math sucks.

[Brent]

On 2012-02-03, richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:22:54 -0500, George Conklin wrote:
>
>> "Brent" <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:jggrq1$kkb$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 2012-02-03, richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This has been in the works since the early 90's.
>>>> I bleieve it was in 2002, the new weight law would have gone into effect
>>>> allowing trucks to carry 92,000 pounds as they do in Europe.
>>>> But cry babies killed that idea.
>>>
>>> The roads in the USA aren't built to handle that kind of pounding. The
>>> difference between the construction of say a German autobahn and the US
>>> interstate is considerable. At the very least it would require different
>>> trailers to mitigate the extra pounding which I doubt the trucking
>>> companies want to shell out for. Likely the costs will be passed on to
>>> passenger vehicle drivers and taxpayers in general.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Even now a legally-loaded 18 wheeler causes 9,000 times more road wear than
>> a car does.

> if that were true, then the roads would need to be replaced every two years
> or sooner.

Not if the road's design life is set for truck traffic.

> There is a stretch of I-80 in Nebraska made entirely of used tires.
> It hasn't seen any maintenance since it was built over 20 years ago.

It wouldn't be. The top layer would use ground up tires in its
composition. It is one of the many ways to recycle used tires.

> Most bridges today are built to withstand probably double the weight of a
> truck.

It's more than double and it's the weight of all traffic on the
bridge combined. However, it seems that many if not most bridges aren't
cared for very well and it appears common for their load capability to
decrease over time.

[Brent]

You are not considering the number of cycles of loading and frequency
which increases per axle even if each axle transmits the same load.

> And with more axles, come more brakes.

Stopping distance should still increase as the braking force increase
through the additional tires is unlikely to be high enough to compensate
for the additional mass (which for braking includes the axle, tires,
brakes, etc).

[Brent]

per truck, not per axle.

[jgar the jorrible]

And with bigger trucks, come bigger idiots.
http://groups.google.com/group/ca.driving/browse_thread/thread/bd94d4d83f0fa2d0#

jg
--
Damn that Golden Earring song.

[Jordon]

20,000 for a steer axle? And you call yourself a trucker?

The steer can't be much more than 12,000, depending on the width of
the tires.

[Jordon]

Cycles of loading? WTF are you talking about? It's about the
distribution of weight over a given distance and number of axles.
As long as any one axle isn't bearing over the maximum legal
weight, and groups of axles aren't bearing over the maximum legal
weight for the group, the roadway isn't put under any additional
stress. That's the reason for the federal weight table, commonly
referred to as the bridge law.

[richard]

Read the law dumbass. It says 20k for the steers.
But the math will only allow for 12k.
Actually, the law says 20k for single axles.

Your math was just plain wrong.

[Jordon]

20,000 pounds? Sure, if you can find a tire that's 3 feet thick!

Show me a standard tractor with steer tires that would allow 20,000
pounds.

You said it yourself. "The math only allows for 12,000". So why are
you using 20,000 in you math? To prove what's theoretically
possible but completely impractical?

My math works for every truck on the road. Your math only works for
the fantasy truck in your head.

[Brent]

Hit your head with five pounds of force each second for five seconds.
Now hit yourself in the head with the same force six times in five
seconds. Understand now?

> It's about the
> distribution of weight over a given distance and number of axles.
> As long as any one axle isn't bearing over the maximum legal
> weight, and groups of axles aren't bearing over the maximum legal
> weight for the group, the roadway isn't put under any additional
> stress. That's the reason for the federal weight table, commonly
> referred to as the bridge law.

The life of a structure is not determined by magnitude of the load
alone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatigue_%28material%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibration

[Jordon]

I think you've been taking your own advise.

What difference does it make if there's 100 trucks going down a
road over the course of an hour with 80,000 pounds on 5 axles, as
opposed to 83.3 trucks at 97,000 pounds with 6?

You're still getting beat on the head just as many times.

[Brent]

The damage done by cyclic loading is not linear with the load or
the frequency. Also the trucks don't pass by a single point in any
regular way. The loading from a single truck changes.

However, I have my doubts the legislation actually requires the
additional axle. I also doubt the number of trucks will drop. If the
number of trucks drops that's less work for drivers.

> You're still getting beat on the head just as many times.

With a different profile.

[Jordon]

Cyclic loading? Not linear with the load? You know, I get paid for
this. My job is knowing how the maximum weight regulations work.

Take a gander of the table in the following link (Federal Highway
Administration) These rules have been in place for over 50 years.

http://goo.gl/LUmQQ

If the new legislation passes trucks will still have to abide by
those rules. There are at least a dozen states that have never even
had an 80,000 pound limit and the one I live in doesn't have a
problem with gross weights of 105,000 pounds, providing you have
enough axles.

> However, I have my doubts the legislation actually requires the
> additional axle. I also doubt the number of trucks will drop. If
> the number of trucks drops that's less work for drivers.

The proposed legislation does require an additional axle. If it
didn't, they'd have to rewrite the federal weight table. They don't
have to with a 6th axle.

http://goo.gl/5RfXK

That link is to a PDF document on the American Trucking
Association's website.

[Brent]

Government tables don't change engineering realities. One can argue that
the difference is not significant from a factual standpoint by running
the appropiate equations, however to blindly say it doesn't matter based
on a static analysis of weight per axle alone is foolish.

>> However, I have my doubts the legislation actually requires the
>> additional axle. I also doubt the number of trucks will drop. If
>> the number of trucks drops that's less work for drivers.

> The proposed legislation does require an additional axle. If it
> didn't, they'd have to rewrite the federal weight table. They don't
> have to with a 6th axle.

> http://goo.gl/5RfXK

> That link is to a PDF document on the American Trucking
> Association's website.

"While there are potential negative cost impacts for bridges"

Seems your cite recognizes that the change in loading has a potential
for increased wear and tear on the road infrastructure.

[Ashton Crusher]

On Fri, 3 Feb 2012 16:27:21 +0000 (UTC), Brent

The damage is basically calculated per axle and then summed for the
whole truck. It will vary depending on how the axles and tires are
arranged. There is also a difference in damage depending on how the
axles are suspended.

This issue of increased loads comes up every few years and each time
the various parties responsible for road maintenance and repair
calculate how much extra damage the higher load limits will cause, and
they WILL cause more damage. There is no free lunch. The trucking
industry wants higher loads but does not want to pay higher
registration fees in exchange. So for the most part these proposals
have died at the state level.

At some point the trucking industry will have provided sufficient
bribes, I mean campaign contributions, to the required number of
legislators and will get their higher limit. One of the confounding
problems for the trucking industry is that load limits are generally
set by the states, not by the feds, so look for any federal
legislation to have some form of carrot and stick to get the states to
agree to the changes, most likely the feds will "earmark" some "new"
money to the states to pay for "upgrading" the highways. The bottom
line will be that the trucking industry increases profits and the
taxpayers foot the bill for the reduced life of the highway pavement.

[Ashton Crusher]

On Fri, 3 Feb 2012 23:44:19 +0000 (UTC), Jordon

The problem with your claims is that you only are looking at the
bridge tables. They have nothing to do with allowable loads on the
PAVEMENT. Pavement damage is caused by axle load, axle spacing, tire
configuration, tire type, tire pressure and it is NOT linear. It is a
Fourth Power law. Try this link

http://tinyurl.com/7bqjgp4

for a more detailed explanation.

>Take a gander of the table in the following link (Federal Highway
>Administration) These rules have been in place for over 50 years.
>
>http://goo.gl/LUmQQ

And are for bridges, not pavements.

>
>If the new legislation passes trucks will still have to abide by
>those rules. There are at least a dozen states that have never even
>had an 80,000 pound limit and the one I live in doesn't have a
>problem with gross weights of 105,000 pounds, providing you have
>enough axles.
>
>> However, I have my doubts the legislation actually requires the
>> additional axle. I also doubt the number of trucks will drop. If
>> the number of trucks drops that's less work for drivers.
>
>The proposed legislation does require an additional axle. If it
>didn't, they'd have to rewrite the federal weight table. They don't
>have to with a 6th axle.
>
>http://goo.gl/5RfXK
>
>That link is to a PDF document on the American Trucking
>Association's website.

Which is certainly biased and incomplete.

[Paul D. DeRocco]

> "Ashton Crusher" <de...@moore.net> wrote

>
> The problem with your claims is that you only are looking at the
> bridge tables. They have nothing to do with allowable loads on the
> PAVEMENT. Pavement damage is caused by axle load, axle spacing, tire
> configuration, tire type, tire pressure and it is NOT linear. It is a
> Fourth Power law. Try this link
>
> http://tinyurl.com/7bqjgp4
>
> for a more detailed explanation.

I read the stuff about axle damage starting on p349, and I don't see
anything there that suggests that there is a nonlinear effect if another
axle is added to a truck while maintaining the same load per axle. Going
from four load-bearing axles to five, and carrying 25% more load, should
increase road damage by 25%. The fact that the extra set of wheels happens
to roll over a particular spot within a few feet behind the last set of
wheels, as opposed to, say, 100 feet behind if they were on a different
truck, isn't noted as having any meaningful impact. For it to matter, there
would have to be some peculiar low frequency resonance in the road surface
itself (which there could be on a bridge, but not on solid ground).

So, if (to keep the numbers simple), the max load were increased from 40
tons to 50 tons, and the number of load-bearing axles were increased from
four to five, there would be a net benefit, because carrying 200 tons of
freight would only take four trucks, with four sets of steering wheels,
rather than five. (Not to mention all the other benefits: fewer vehicles
taking up space on the road, fewer drivers needed, less fuel needed to push
the extra tractor around, etc.) If that lowers the price of trucking, and
increases the total amount of trucking, then perhaps the level of damage
will go up a little, but only proportional to the amount of extra freight
carried, which is a fair trade.

--

Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco
Paul mailto:pder...@ix.netcom.com

[Ashton Crusher]

It's going to depend on where that axle is added. Axle groups have a
different effect than the same number of axles way farther apart. As
do different types of axle suspensions. Going from a 2 axle
suspension to a 3 axle suspension could introduce similar issues. A
proper analysis of the effects gets to be quite involved and generally
is not done for day to day comparisons. It will often be done when
really heavy loads are moved on "centipede" like trailers with many
axle groups. An analysis for a blanket change in load limits needs to
be fairly rigorously done because the effects will be on every road
forever.

[Jordon]

C'mon richard, show me a truck that has super singles on the steer.

[jgar the jorrible]

On Feb 4, 10:40 am, "Paul D. DeRocco" <pdero...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> So, if (to keep the numbers simple), the max load were increased from 40
> tons to 50 tons, and the number of load-bearing axles were increased from
> four to five, there would be a net benefit, because carrying 200 tons of
> freight would only take four trucks, with four sets of steering wheels,
> rather than five. (Not to mention all the other benefits: fewer vehicles
> taking up space on the road, fewer drivers needed, less fuel needed to push
> the extra tractor around, etc.) If that lowers the price of trucking, and
> increases the total amount of trucking, then perhaps the level of damage
> will go up a little, but only proportional to the amount of extra freight
> carried, which is a fair trade.

No it isn't. The roads are already fucked up and not getting fixed.
SR 76 E next to the Oceanside airport is an exercise in crater
avoidance, both lanes, and that's only a few years old. There are
much worse, I'm sure everyone could come up with examples.

The problem is worse where the trucks brake and the axles pound the
pavement like jackhammers.

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
http://mintinfo.hubpages.com/hub/Top-10-causes-of-Car-Accidents

[Ashton Crusher]

http://www.bridgestonetrucktires.com/us_eng/real/magazines/ra_v13_i3/images/ra_pdct_hero_v13i3.jpg

I've seen them on many concrete transit mixers and also on mobile
crane trucks.

[Jordon]

Well, you got me there. But you'll never see them on a tractor.