Supersizing Hits Freight World

[UglyCasanova]

Article

I read this article and can't help but thinking that this is going in the wrong direction. Companies such as Kraft are advocating an adjustment to existing laws that would allow their freight trucks to carry heavier loads as well as allow them to be significantly longer (up to three trailer lengths, and who knows maybe more).

On the plus side this would increase the efficiency of the trucks by allowing more tonnage to be pulled by a truck. The increased weight would increase the wear and tear on the roads. The article states that this could be offset by some sort of tax on the truckers which would go toward road maintenance, but who honestly believes that the money generated would be funneled toward its intended cause. Also, do we really need sleepy drivers hauling around even bigger loads? I've seen my fair share of scary driving by truckers hauling just one trailer, but triple that length?!

For hauling freight long distances across the country I think that rail is the only sensible solution (when a water route is not available). The trucks should be used for short haul trips, not cross country excursions. This would be more efficient and safer. In my opinion this proposal is a step in the wrong direction.

 

[Wyndru]

I agree with rail too, for the same reasons you mentioned. We need less trucks on our highways, not more.

 

[lupi]

have 0 belief that fees would actually make a positive impact, if they reached that funding stream at all, for road maintenance. also wonder why rail doesn't carry more stuff unless it's with so few railline operators giving monopoly like pricing.

 

[Malak]

Why do you think they ignore the rail idea? Investment required?

 

[deadlyapp]

Article

I read this article and can't help but thinking that this is going in the wrong direction. Companies such as Kraft are advocating an adjustment to existing laws that would allow their freight trucks to carry heavier loads as well as allow them to be significantly longer (up to three trailer lengths, and who knows maybe more).

On the plus side this would increase the efficiency of the trucks by allowing more tonnage to be pulled by a truck. The increased weight would increase the wear and tear on the roads. The article states that this could be offset by some sort of tax on the truckers which would go toward road maintenance, but who honestly believes that the money generated would be funneled toward its intended cause. Also, do we really need sleepy drivers hauling around even bigger loads? I've seen my fair share of scary driving by truckers hauling just one trailer, but triple that length?!

For hauling freight long distances across the country I think that rail is the only sensible solution (when a water route is not available). The trucks should be used for short haul trips, not cross country excursions. This would be more efficient and safer. In my opinion this proposal is a step in the wrong direction.

I don't think i've ever seen the super long trailers during the day, I usually only see them in the wee hours of the morning

 

[Eli]

I see triple trailers all the time in Oregon.. not so much here in NM.

 

[Bignate603]

I honestly think that they don't use rail as much because it requires more planning. It's easier to hire a truck to pick up a load and run it directly from point A to point B than try to coordinate rail schedules, availability on certain trains going where they want, routing it through all the different rail routes to get to its destination, short haul trucks to move it from the rail station to its final definition, and all the other things that go along with rail travel. It's just easier to stick it on a truck.

 

[Jesusthewererabbit]

I see triple trailers all the time in Oregon.. not so much here in NM.

There are very few here in NM, and you usually only see them on I40. Maybe a few on I25, but there isn't nearly as much north-south shipping going on through here. I don't remember why exactly, and I don't think it's illegal, but it's highly discouraged, and most likely is a pain in the ass to get a permit for. Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever seen a triple trailer down here, and very few doubles, and almost none of them off of the interstates.

 

[BoomerD]

I see triple trailers all the time in Oregon.. not so much here in NM.

Yep...many western states permit triples...Kahleeforneeya doesn't, and Washington didn't used to permit them. (not sure if that's changed)

Triples are a PITA to drive. Doubles are bad enough...

I suspect the extra wear & tear of a tractor pulling triples as compared to pulling doubles will be pretty minimal. It doesn't take much math skill to figure that if they can't pull triples, it means they'll have to use extra tractors to pull more doubles...<shrug>

 

[herm0016]

i see doubles all the time on I80, on the toll roads of indiana and ohio we used to see doubles and triples. ups and fedex run a lot of them. they are on the highway mostly, and go to hubs so you do not see them off highway too much.

 

[mmntech]

1+ for rail. There's way too many trucks on Ontario roads. Especially going along the 401. Most of which are travelling long haul. There are times when there's literally more trucks than cars.

Heavier trucks are also going to really chew up the pavement. Something the government never fixes to begin with.

 

[Powermoloch]

Rail is the way.

 

[lxskllr]

I've never seen a triple trailer. Probably illegal out here(MD)

 

[destrekor]

The word "intermodal" has been popping up somewhat frequently, at least in the media here in NW Ohio.

Intermodal, as a suggestion, is definitely something to think about here - versus ignoring the other transpo methods and fucking up the roads even more.

We don't need more cargo on the roadways, we need less cargo on the roadways. Most of the rail networks should be able to accommodate most cargo, I don't know why we have so much on the road.

Then again, not every manufacturer, distribution center, industrial complex, or whatever, can possibly be located within a few miles of most of the existing rail networks. Many are actually fairly far from major rail networks and waterways, so OTR even ten or 50 miles just tends to happen for the more remote areas.

Not that it has to stay that way, but I have a feeling rail isn't getting the focus it needs. Might be problems with the rail industry itself holding such progress back.

 

[Scouzer]

I've never seen a triple trailer either.. good god, I can't imagine one of them trying to drive around in town. I very rarely see doubles.

 

[Malak]

Yep...many western states permit triples...Kahleeforneeya doesn't, and Washington didn't used to permit them. (not sure if that's changed)

I'm pretty sure I've seen some triples in Washington, but it is rare.

 

[skyking]

There is a reason rail is fail. Shipping by rail is neither quick or simple. Businesses operate on a much leaner scale these last few decades. Most successful operations use the Just In Time (JIT) supply chain model. Stock nothing, order it in right before you need it, repeat repeat.
Rail's lack of responsiveness does not cut it so trucking wins the day, unfortunately.

 

[skyking]

I'm pretty sure I've seen some triples in Washington, but it is rare.

No, not in WA at all. My buddy drove and then dispatched for Oak Harbor Freight and he made trips from Seattle to Boise. He would haul doubles to Yakima, drop a trailer and get one, and then right across the river in Hermiston he'd get the third trailer and drive triple through Oregon to Boise. On the way back he'd drop a trailer again in Hermiston.

 

[BoomerD]

No, not in WA at all. My buddy drove and then dispatched for Oak Harbor Freight and he made trips from Seattle to Boise. He would haul doubles to Yakima, drop a trailer and get one, and then right across the river in Hermiston he'd get the third trailer and drive triple through Oregon to Boise. On the way back he'd drop a trailer again in Hermiston.

When I was young, in between construction jobs, I used to drive on the "extra board" for several freight haulers. That's how we did it...doubles in Washington, pick up a 3rd trailer at the state line...then triples in Idaho and Oregon.

IIRC, with a set of triples, my overall length was 110 feet...

For those who have never seen this:

http://www.google.com/images?hl=&q=...B3GGLL_enUS390US391&ie=UTF-8&biw=1333&bih=777

 

[kranky]

Railroads are massively more fuel-efficient than trucks. It makes sense to haul by rail until you are in the area of the destination.

There is a reason rail is fail. Shipping by rail is neither quick or simple. Businesses operate on a much leaner scale these last few decades. Most successful operations use the Just In Time (JIT) supply chain model. Stock nothing, order it in right before you need it, repeat repeat.
Rail's lack of responsiveness does not cut it so trucking wins the day, unfortunately.

Not sure where you got that impression but freight rail is as reliable as trucking. Plenty of businesses use rail and a JIT supply chain. There are probably some short line railroads which aren't as customer oriented but the big railroads are all about reliability and on-time delivery. If railroads were unreliable, UPS wouldn't be using it for nearly all their long-distance shipments. Fedex is using it more and more as well.

 

[MotF Bane]

Never seen a triple, and rarely doubles, northeast. The government does a fucking terrible job of road repairs, so heavier trucks aren't going to be a help.

 

[Squisher]

The biggest hindrance to rail is the concept of lean manufacturing. You want just as much as you are going to use right now delivered to you. Rail can't do that.

 

[Anubis]

Never seen a triple, and rarely doubles, northeast. The government does a fucking terrible job of road repairs, so heavier trucks aren't going to be a help.

there's that and every single highway would have to be made 3 lanes or wider to actually make that work, Dbls already cause enough issues with slowing the fuck out of traffic

 

[EagleKeeper]

Never seen a triple, and rarely doubles, northeast. The government does a fucking terrible job of road repairs, so heavier trucks aren't going to be a help.

Doubles may not be allowed in the NE outside of the Mass Pike.
There are weight limits on the road - special permits for weight and movement are required to exceed such.

That is why at exits; you will a lot of seconds dropped for later pickup.

Tripples are mainly used west of the Mississippi.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Article

I read this article and can't help but thinking that this is going in the wrong direction. Companies such as Kraft are advocating an adjustment to existing laws that would allow their freight trucks to carry heavier loads as well as allow them to be significantly longer (up to three trailer lengths, and who knows maybe more).

On the plus side this would increase the efficiency of the trucks by allowing more tonnage to be pulled by a truck. The increased weight would increase the wear and tear on the roads. The article states that this could be offset by some sort of tax on the truckers which would go toward road maintenance, but who honestly believes that the money generated would be funneled toward its intended cause. Also, do we really need sleepy drivers hauling around even bigger loads? I've seen my fair share of scary driving by truckers hauling just one trailer, but triple that length?!

For hauling freight long distances across the country I think that rail is the only sensible solution (when a water route is not available). The trucks should be used for short haul trips, not cross country excursions. This would be more efficient and safer. In my opinion this proposal is a step in the wrong direction.

Yet half of ATOT thinks bicyclists need to pay a tax to ride on the roadways.

I agree, this is a really bad idea...but Kraft has tons of money to pour into lobbying and buying politicians so it will probably pass. Free market at work.