Thank you for voting Crowdsignal Logo

Should the federal truck weight limit on Interstates be lifted from 80K to 97K pounds? (Poll Closed)

Total Votes: 9,943

  • Lee Martin - 11 years ago

    Overweight trucks are a safety hazard to all drivers due to excessive mass rolling at a rate which is quite difficult to.stop. We have to remember that as mass increases in weight the amount of force exerted on the highways is also increased causing road issues/accidents. I say emphatically NO to overweight trucks.

  • lLee Snyder - 11 years ago

    NO the road are bad all ready

  • Bob Aparicio - 11 years ago

    They havn't heard of the railroad....I guess. Don't we have enough traffic as it is? The cities can not keep up with the pot holes as it is now they want longer and heavier trucks......Nuts....just nuts.

  • Charles W. Bohi - 11 years ago

    It amazes me that we continue to propose measures that will divert traffic to less fuel efficient modes of freight transportation when we profess to be concerned about climate change and our crumbling infrastructure.

  • Brian - 11 years ago

    If you ever get the chance to talk with anyone in the corporate world at JB Hunt, the largest trucking company, they will even tell you they do NOT support the weight increase. That alone should be enough for you to understand that this weight increase is not at good idea. The railroad is equipped to handle ever growing Intermodal (IM) traffic. It only takes the addition of an extra road locomotive to handle the extra weight/cars needed. IM is the fastest growing segment of the railroad and it is being handled quite well, here at Norfolk Southern we have recieved several honors from companies like JB Hunt as well as UPS for the way in which their shipments are handled. If it wasn't obvious I am an employee of Norfolk Southern, in thier Mechanical Department and a graduate of UIC with a degree in Mechanical Engineering and this proposed weight increase makes no sense to me as a railroader nor as a Mechanical Engineer.

  • Ed Erickson jr - 11 years ago

    I am for heavier trucks then I won't have to haul illegal loads like I do now all the time...oops.

  • Michelle Novak - 11 years ago

    Our Infrastructure is crumbling now, and we can't afford upkeep. Trucking cos. Aren't paying even half of their share of damages now. When therevare wrecks, it is common for firstresponders and DOT's to seek monies from the insurance meant for injured parties, because wrecks are so costly. Adding weight only increases potential cost for victims, locales, responders, etc. Privatizevprofit, socialize cost, risk, pain. Wrong. No!!! Sick of paying for corporate profit! My nephew paid with his life sitting for a traffic stop. Sleeping driver. 55, 000 lbs. 5 deaths, 10 injuries. No more weight! Profits are high enough.

  • wayne hamann - 11 years ago

    6 axel combination has same psi on road at 96k as 5 axel 80k breaking ability is the same on both combinations efficienty is greatly increased if companys don/t cut your rates for you being more efficient less traffic on our highways saves wear on highways states should have options to what each wants

  • Garry Kent - 11 years ago


  • Carlos nava - 11 years ago

    Most of our roads and highways were not designed with the greater loads in mind. Our traffic patterns did not envision the bigger equipment as part of the flow of traffic. The current load limits are hazardous enough to the public and destructive to the infrastructure already. No need to push it.

  • Chris - 11 years ago

    YES-We can haul as heavy as !00,00 lbs here in the northeast with 6 axles and are roads are in better shape then alot of other parts of the country. But to go national with it there should be a indorsement added to the CDL

  • Matt Williams - 11 years ago

    yes I think they should increase the weight limit for truckers why not let them haul bigger loads it is just as safe as the loads they are hauling now and they can do it at a lower cost. Keeping their cost down means the price we pay for those goods is lower. Bigger loads means fewer trips, meaning fewer trucks, less fuel, and less polution. Sounds like a win win to me

  • Scott Koerner - 11 years ago

    Yes, with 6 axles this would decrease the weight per axle, improve the stopping ability and damage the road surface less. Along with increasing productivity and reducing the number of trips required.

  • Barbara - 11 years ago


  • Mac Owen - 11 years ago

    Not much more can be said, it is absolutely FOOLISH to even consider this idea even! I have been rearended by a fully loaded Simi truck that couldn't stop. Also there are "bullies" in the bigger trucks, and the bigger the truck, the more power, and the pushier they will get We have adequate Waterways and rail lines capable to hande moving freight that are nearly empty most of the time. Try passing these things in a rainstorm, it is like driving blind , I say make them smaller!!!l

  • Carl Rettstadt - 11 years ago

    I don't think it is safe and it would put more ware and tare on the roads. The larger truck loads could result in fewer drivers. We should keep as many of the drivers working as possible.

  • D.M. Tolliver - 11 years ago

    I cant believe raising the weight limit is even being considered. That's ridiculous.

  • Tim Hay - 11 years ago

    Why would you want to haul more weight which means more wear & tear on your equipment less fuel mileage for the same revenue?? But if the big companies have there way about it than it will happen because they're in hopes that will help them solicte more buieness. Not to mention the safety hazard it WILL create. They will be wanting to up our road taxes to pay for having to upgrade the interstates not to mention your permits and bad plates. Insurance will increase because the insurance companies knows it would be more of a safety hazard. I can see how it would be good and save the shippers money but I can see NOTHING TO BENIFIT the Owner Operators and thats who will be footing the bill for it all!! Just another way to try and weed out the independent.

  • W. Doncoes - 11 years ago

    After reading some of the previous comments it's obvious who wants bigger, heavier payload trucks. With NO technical data I already have the answer. My eyes can see the damage the trucks already do and have done to our highways. Just take a short drive on I-75 and if you drive in the right outside lane or middle lane your car will let you know very quickly what damage has already been done. I do not feel I want to pay for bigger, heavier trucks and in my own estimation the load weights should be REDUCED and not increased.

  • Sonja Barstad-Maybee - 11 years ago


  • Lisa - 11 years ago

    Bad idea, I'm not so much concerned about the roads and bridges. My main concern is the extra wear and tear on our truck and fuel mileage. More weight means less money in our pockets

  • Barrett Leer - 11 years ago

    A higher allowable payload equals fewer trucks on the road which would immediately reduce the opportunity for accidents with heavy trucks. The trucking industry is loaded with professionals who use the same roads personally as well. They don't want more dangerous driving conditions any more than anyone else. If you're one of the people on here worried about reckless truck drivers (they definitely exist), search out a professional trucker and take the opportunity to spend a day with them on the road and see first hand what they have to deal with as far as foolish and inconsiderate people driving cars. You'll be much more informed to have a factually based opinion; and you'll be a far more considerate driver.

    As for this nonsense about not allowing trucks to travel more than 100 miles to deliver product, not all businesses have a rail spur in their backyard. Rail transport is an economically viable option for nonperishable goods traveling 1000 miles of more. But, with the degradation of the rail infrastructure over the last half of last century, it'll be another 20 years of rebuilding to make it as viable as it perhaps once was. This free-market economy of ours is in no position to wait 20 years for anything much less to wait 20 years for the railroad. So let's increase the gross vehicle weight safely and wisely and let's go make some money.

  • GH Lang - 11 years ago

    For all of you who are in favor of this, apparently you don't own your own rigs. We get paid more money to haul oversize/over weight/over dimension freight! This is the governments way of getting more for less!!! If you honestly believe it will lower consumer costs and benefit us O/O's you are sadly mistaken!! It will lower fuel mileage, increase wear and tear on equipment, destroy roads and bridges, and INCREASE the damage if and when we collide with something or some one! One person stated stopping distance would be the same. BULL!!! you need to understand the relationship and dynamics of mass and acceleration and deceleration. Simply put, a 240 grain bullet traveling at 925 feet per second has more impact and stopping power than a 65 grain bullet at 2200 feet per second. We are the 240 grain bullet in our rigs with an enormous rolling mass. Cars and people are the 65 grain bullet. We overpower them by our sheer kinetic weight. Study the road wave phenomenon and how it applies to bridges or even the ice road. We push that much weight consistently on the current infrastructure and it will start failing rapidly! Bad idea all around!!!

  • R. Homer Doughty - 11 years ago

    A complete and diverse transportation system is a must to the ecomonic well-being of our nation. However, increasing the load limit on trucks that are traveling our highways and interstates causes more safety concerns and more highway maintenance costs. States are trying to "pinch pennies" in order to maintain the highway system today and can ill afford the added cost that increasing the weight limit will cause.
    All of us non-truck drivers have to use this same highway system in order to transport our families to and from their daily needs. Incresing the weight limits add to the road hazards that put our families in harm's way. The risks of raising the limits far out weigh any advantages

  • Michael - 11 years ago

    97000 lbs. trucks will greatly increase the damage to roads & bridges and they’re much more unsafe. 80,000 lbs. trucks already cause too much damage that fees do not recover. Maximum trucks weights should be reduced to 65,000 lbs. until the trucking industry builds their own interstates.

  • Dave - 11 years ago

    I see at least one truck/auto collision each week during my commute to work on the highway. The trucks win every time. I am frightened to see what an additional 17k pounds will do.

  • Mike - 11 years ago

    With the extra axle, a 97,000 lb truck has the same footprint on the road as an 80,000 lb truck.
    With the extra axle, a 97, 000 lb truck has the same stopping distance than an 80,000 lb truck.
    A 97,000 lb truck will make fewer trips for determined delivery tonnage.
    A 97,000 lb truck will have less emission because of fewer trips needed for product delivery.
    A 97,000 lb truck will provide a higher profit margin for the trucker.
    States will have the right to collect fees for the higher weight rated truck.

  • Mike - 11 years ago

    If we adopted a hub-and-spoke intermodal freight system that reduced OTR truck hauls to not more than 100 miles, we would probably achieve energy independence. Simple physics dictates that rail is infinitely more energy efficient than trucking. The amount of surface contact/friction of rubber on road for just ONE 18-wheel truck is roughly equal to that of a ONE HUNDRED CAR freight train. (Steel wheels on a steel rail only touch in an area about the size of a dime.) The CSX commercials sum it up nicely, they can move a ton of freight 500 miles on ONE gallon of fuel. And, well-established technologies already exist for powering rail traffic by alternative fuels, including electricity.

    And, BTW, the comments which refer to potential unemployment in trucking are wrong. The same number of truck drivers would probably still be needed to shuttle the truck trailers at the beginning and end of the haul. They would just be spending nights at home instead of on the road. Besides, if they did find themselves out of work, the railroads would be hiring.

    And yes, adhering to full disclosure, I am a retired rail union officer.

  • bill claypool - 11 years ago

    "The railroad industry has obviously seeded this poll." I would say that the trucking industry likely started this poll.

  • Scott M. Sawle - 11 years ago

    To Jason Hagard. I have an active CDL for a truck that is legal at 98,000 for frozen roads. What is your experience? Scott Sawle

  • John Starr - 11 years ago

    In this fiscal environment does it make sense to increase truck weights that will further destroy national highway infrastructure? Who is supporting this? The paving and oil industries? Would the trucking industry be willing to increase diesel fuel taxes to increase weights? How about a comprehensive national transportation cost allocation study to show where our transportation dollars should be placed?

    Let's reduce the maximum allowable weight on trucks, not consider increases. Let's ship more by rail which is technologically more efficient than interstate trucking.

  • tony fox - 11 years ago

    Take a breath everyone. We have the highest legal loads in the nation here in Michigan. Our state concluded that commuter traffic does more damage and causes more accidents than our "over loaded" trucks. If you are that worried about the number of trucks on the highway and all the fuel they burn, wouldn't reducing their number by 20% be a good thing? That is the goal of raising load limits. As far as this being a big company agenda, I'm a forester with a company of 28 co-workers. If our load limits were dropped to national averages, we couldn't stay in business. I understand the initial concern, but look a little deeper. The time for making decisions based on what we feel is over. Let's look at reasonable data and decide with our heads, not our hearts.

  • The SWPA supports allowing on interstate routes the same weights as state roads. The logging industry would better benefit from a 5 axle, 88,000 pound gross weight. Six axles will cause more damage to the county and secondary roads where timber is harvested. This configuration has shown to be safe and will overall reduce fuel costs, emissions and result in fewer loads hauled. At 4000 extra pounds a load will be gained for every 22 loads hauled.

  • Larry - 11 years ago

    NO- If they are trying to improve safety then they need to do a couple things. All OTR must be on trains and only moved by truck for less than 100 miles with a, all drivers must be paid by the hour and their would be to need to make up lies on a logbook or speed and all trucks must be less than 60,000 lbs for a better fuel mileage, better stopping distance and better for the roads.

  • BRUCE BRZOZNOWSKI - 11 years ago


  • Ricky - 11 years ago

    based on trucks being equipped with a sixth axle to improve safety and reduce pavement wear and/or to give states the option

  • Alan Shelby - 11 years ago

    Increasing truck weights from 80 to 97,000 pounds (heavier, not bigger trucks), with an additional axle, would reduce ground pressure/road damage per tire, reduce fuel consumption/carbon emissions, reduce traffic congestion by delivering the same volume of freight with fewer miles traveled, and increase trucking efficiency.

  • Jason - 11 years ago

    The railroad industry has obviously seeded this poll. There is a need for freight to be transported by both truck and rail, and if you want to talk safety, check with the folks in Nebraska near the derailed train how safe they think rail is.

    The fact is when additional axles are used on trucks, the weight on the road is reduced, causing less wear on the road surface, and additional braking to stop the truck. So if the weight limits went from 80K to 97K, five current loads could be hauled with four trucks. The additional sixth axle would be equipped with braking force rated at 20K, so in fact the truck would stop shorter.

    The truck industry has grown over rail because of speed and flexibility. I doubt either are going to change anytime soon. Businesses are unlikely to travel to the local railroad station to pickup their freight...and customers are unlikely to wait for their products to be shipped by rail.

  • Mike Akers - 11 years ago

    You can quote science all you want to and cite productivity all you wish, it won't cure the frustation you feel when an 18 wheeler is on your bumper at 70mph in rush hour traffic. Put heavy loads on the rail for long haul and let the trucks have it for the short haul between rail terminal and destinations. Make them lighter if anything!

  • Michael Glaser - 11 years ago

    Training for drivers is insufficient as it is now. The last thing the general public needs is inexperienced, poorly trained drivers going down the roads with more weight. Not to mention the additional damages our infrastructure will see at an unprecedented rate.

    The EPA and CARB have been pushing for higher fuel mileage for years so what good does all this "better" equipment do with the increased weight? Companies have been purchasing new equipment to meet these standards. These new trucks will not be able to pull the extra weight without modifications.

    For those that think that if a shipper can put more on a truck then they'll be less trucks on the road or it will be cheaper you are wrong. Shippers will just put as much as possible on the same amount or more trucks to increase there bottom line.

    Also I am a OTR driver. And to the I do it everyday so why can't other drivers crowd your cutting off your own nose to spite your face. Lets just put that ego aside for a minute and use your brain. Currently if you running your business right you are making more for those oversized loads. Do you think that if everyone can haul more your still going see that premium your seeing now. Your going to start losing money and in this industry and current economy I don't know of anyone that can afford to take a big hit. Wake up this is another example of the bigger companies trying to stomp you out.

    Bottom line is it's not in the best interest of the public safety of wallet to increase the size and weight.

  • mike - 11 years ago

    I live in the northeast and see how the expert drivers navagate the winter now, Imagine how well they will do by adding the extra weight to the trucks, and just think of the unlucky person that my be at the loosing end of one of the high speed crashes.

  • Paul Schultz - 11 years ago

    Here in Michigan were allowed 154,00 #'s on 11 axles with 40 tires which is actually less weight per tire than 80,000 #'s on 18 tires which is less harmful to the roads. In addition we have fewer trucks than would be required with a lighter GCWR (Gross Combination Weight Rating) resulting in fewer inexperienced drivers and less fuel burned resulting in less pollution, etc. Most bridges are built to handle the weight, some have restrictions.

    Major causes of road damage here in Michigan are the corrosive effects of salt, the spring thaw, the sun dries out the pavement and underfunding. Road restrictions (reduced GCWR) on some roads are in effect now which reduces road damage at this time of year due to the frost.

    For an excellent explanation of the spring thaw go to

    Michigan’s gas tax is 18.7 cents per gallon (cpg) + 20.7 cpg State Sales tax + 18.4 cpg Federal for a total of 57.8 cpg which is among the highest in the nation. Governor Snyder has proposed raising the gas tax from 18.7 cpg to 33 cpg (among other reforms) which would make us the highest gas tax in the nation unless they also remove the State Sales tax from gasoline.

    Only about 11 cpg of the 18.7 cpg State gas tax goes to maintain our highways and bridges. Michigan should join 30 other states that mandate state gas taxes be spent on roads and bridges. The 20.7 cpg State sales taxes go towards schools and revenue sharing and none goes towards roads. Wisconsin’s gas tax is 30.9 cpg + 2 cpg State sales taxes + 18.4 cpg Federal for a total of 51.3 cpg so they spend much more than us (about 1/3rd) to maintain their roads.

    Total Michigan diesel tax is 62.3 cpg and Wisconsin is 57.3 which means that trucks are paying more per gallon than cars. Sixty percent of federal gas tax revenue goes to highways and bridges and the remainder is spent on programs such as repairing lighthouses, paving bike paths and building museums.

    Considering that the typical 11-axle truck gets between 3-4 mpg and the typical 18 wheeler gets 6-7 mpg it’s fair to say that these trucks are already paying more than their fair share.


  • Douglas Norman - 11 years ago

    yes” vote is based on trucks being equipped with a sixth axle

  • Jason Haggard - 11 years ago

    It looks to me that a lot of people want to put truck drivers out of work because they feel that trucks shouldn't be on the interstate. To Scott Sawl, your comment is nothing more than a myth. the braking systems were designed to more effectively stop vehicles hauling the current 80,000lbs standard.....better monitoring? Oh you mean EOBR's which have in fact been found to have zero safety benefit.

    To those like Scott, who also think that it will be more efficient and also decrease the number of trucks, you are wrong. Shippers will merely load every truck to max capacity and double the amount of trucks to increase their profits. This just goes to show how far out of touch the general public is with the reality of the trucking industry. There are still millions of you out there who think trucks stop faster because they have more tires, so what does that tell you?

  • Tom Sundahl - 11 years ago

    We already have 53' trls that we only load to the 48' mark for weights over 40,000. What now load to the 53' mark for anything over 50,000. What's the point. A large percent of the time u have wasted trl space States with bridge laws will surely be impacted by the length and weight if this goes through. Politics need to go worry about the migration of the spermatozoa whale and leave well enough alone

  • Jackie Amos - 11 years ago

    Please listen to constituents.

  • Gayla Kyle - 11 years ago

    Is the government going to train drivers how to pull that extra weight? Will the roads handle the extra weight? Who will pay the costs of having the equipment to haul these heavier loads? Has any of these questions been thought through or questions not asked here? Think it through before raising the weight.

  • Fred Ream - 11 years ago

    As a Civil Enginner I understand how much quicker our bridges and highways deteriorate due to trucks. Trucks cause the majority of the traffic induced fatique and damage to highway infrastructure. More weight will result in even shorter service life for bridges and will put the burden on taxpayers to subsidize the trucking industry even further. Put the trucks on trains for city to city haul then distribte the loads via trucks close to the destination. Less highway congestion, less polution, less wear and tear on our overburdened infrastructure, and less burden on the tax payers to subsidize trucking companies... WIN, WIN, WIN, WIN!

  • andy.cole - 11 years ago

    Heavier trucks reduces the overal number of trucks on the road which reduces, not increases, the safety risk to passenger vehicles. In addition, the railroads have very limited capacity to increase the amount of freight they can haul in the future. Every other developed country in the world has a trucking industry which can haul much greater weights, consequently putting the US at a significant cost advantage. Come on people, lets at least get on a level playing field!


  • thetruckinglife - 11 years ago

    NO, who wants to go down a 6% grade with 90,000 + Pounds?
    definitely will bring more road wear and poorer fuel economy.
    how would that even work? would another axle not be needed to support the weight?

  • Nico - 11 years ago

    This is a terrible idea. Our freeways don't have enough funding for the increasing capacity to handle increased transit and we definitely don't have enough money to fix the increased damage these heavier trucks will cause. Instead of this change, we should move more shipping to rail. As a side benefit, we'll improve air quality and energy efficiency while also decreasing fuel consumption.

  • Garrett Robson - 11 years ago

    I say this, the railroad built this country from one shore to another! At Promontory Point, Utah two railroads met to form the transcontinental railroad, not two trucking companies! This new weight if passed will hurt out roads and take business away from the railroad. We need our rail system more than ever as we move into the future! Stop tricking from slowing us all down!!!!!

  • Tom Jedic - 11 years ago

    NO !!!!! With vast improvements to our nation's railroad network, there is absolutely nothing to gain by increasing truck traffic and truck size on our highways. It just doesn't make sense. Keep people safe and move goods the sensible rail.

  • Betty Smith - 11 years ago

    No comment. My answer is enough.

  • J Johnson - 11 years ago

    This is just another attempt by big business to cash in at our expense. This will hurt our already bad roads and will lose more driving jobs. No no no!!!!!

  • B Bennett - 11 years ago

    Absolutey a mistake. The taxpayers will be the ones that suffer from the added expense to an already overburdened highway system. Added weights only increases the hazards already on our highways.

  • Ned Neenan - 11 years ago

    I have worked with loggers for many years and have continued to see them struggle to make a living. One of the benefits to a raising truck weight limit would allow these loggers to make more money per load and move more wood to the market with less trucks.

  • Wade Sexton - 11 years ago

    I travel the interstates on a daily basis and get to see first hand the damage that these heavy trucks do to our infrastructure. It also pains me to think of the safety of the general public that will be involved if these trucks are allowed to increase their weight restrictions. This country has a freight rail system second to none in the world!!! I say we utilize that by refusing to increase weight restrictions on trucks and encourage the trucking industry to work with the rail industry to move freight around this great nation of ours. This would keep our families safe, save our taxpayers and our states lots of money and continue to grow our economy without any sacrifice.

  • Tyler Coodonato - 11 years ago

    No to overweight trucks!!

  • Floyd Milbank - 11 years ago

    Added weight will worsen roads already burdened

  • Robert Grossman - 11 years ago

    I travel Route 81 from Pennsylvania to North Carolina and these big trucks are a menace. They come up behnd you and will push you off the road if you don't go faster than the speed limit. It is real scary for the motorist.

  • Cynthia - 11 years ago

    i encounter big tractor trailers daily & i also travel often on a stretchof highway they use very "OFTEN" the highway is very broken up due to weight of these trailers. There definitely does not need to be an increase in weight because so much of highway is already broken up which leads to our car being thrown out of line if we run over them. There is also a side back road i use to leave home & this road has always been smooth until several companies that ship their merchandise by truck moved in & now this road also has become very crumbled. Even when it's repaired, it doesn't last because there is a constant flow of tractor trailers using the road on a daily basis. These are a few reasons i would like to see more merchandise moved by rail

  • Darnell Wood - 11 years ago

    How can anyone not see that our highway infrastructure is in need of an extensive overhaul. The heavy truck traffic is continuing to damage the infrastructure and put less dollars into the repairs. The nations railroads have the infrastructure to handle the capacity and is also much safer.

  • Shelley - 11 years ago

    In addition to the benefits of decreasing highway deaths, highway traffic congestion, and highway infrastructure demise, should we also consider the benefits our marriages, children, and families would gain in that moving the heavier, large-load, long-haul freight to rail would decrease the profits gained by the porn and prostitution industries? Let me pose this question... How many of you have seen the hordes of interstate billboards sponsored by various "Spa's", strip joints, and porn shops, with the words "trucker parking", or perhaps the billboards our children read that cater to truckers that have the words, "Strippers - need we say more? - Truckers welcome", with images of pole dancers, etc. Let's just put it this way.... I doubt that the trucking industry is the ONLY industry whose money is funding the push for this legislation. And the jobs? Where would the truckers go for work? ..... to the railroads, who would need additional employees as a result of the increased business. I seriously doubt there are billboards on the side of railroad tracks enticing engineers and conductors to visit spas, strip joints, and adult toy/video stores. Even if there were, at least their children (and everyone else's children for that matter) wouldn't be subjected to the constant barrage advertisements pushing porn and prostitution.

  • Big "TEE" - 11 years ago

    Are we NUTS...what about the safety of people first and second our highways and the increasing costs associated with repairs that these trucks do daily. Its absurb to think in any possible way that its OK for trucks to be allowed to increase their capacity. Trucks are destroying the infrastucture that was designed to evecuate the masses from large cities and permit safe travel from urban to rural. Further the safety factor from trucks has plenty to be desired. The argument of raising wieght limits might put a few less trucks on the road but one train can take a lot more trucks off the road and prevent some associated costs thea we continually pass on to TAXPAYERS.

  • Gwen - 11 years ago

    Trucks cannot carry as much heavy equipment in one load as freight cars in one movement. If we have shorter hauls, we will have more trucks and more congestion. Do the math.

  • Delaney Kopp - 11 years ago

    With the condition of the interstate highways as they are now we do not need heavier trucks on the road to deteriorate our highways further. Besides the issue of safety with the heavier trucks being on the road.

  • Christina - 11 years ago

    I believe the big tractor trailers with more weight cause a big safety hazard for drivers on the road. They are harming the roads let alone harming the environment. These big trucks are not safe and have caused literally thousands of car accidents/fatalities. I am afraid for my safety and believe using the rail system is the safer and more efficient way to transport these heavy loads. With fuel costs on the rise, rail is the way to go. Trains do not damage the road us taxpayers pay for nor do they ruin the environment like these tractor trailers. I would just feel much safer with this being looked into alot more carefully. Many tractor trailer drivers drive without sleep and they drive super fast with no concern of the cars behind them or the rocks that continuously damage our windshields and chip the paint off our vehicles. My main concern though like i have mentioned numerous times is SAFETY for the people.

  • Loris - 11 years ago

    NO, I have 4 men in my family already driving, tractor trailers . Much to heavy!!

  • Steve K - 11 years ago

    Rail service makes sense where appropriate, BUT rails don't go everywhere! Allow bigger trucks on all roads, with more axels to distribute weight. This results in fewer trucks on the road & less fuel used.

  • Robert Huray - 11 years ago

    After reading some of the comments, I am disturbed at the number of people that think rail transport is the answer. The trucks with the 6 axle configuration create less road pressure at 97000 pounds than the 5 axle trucks at 80000 pounds. Rail service is not the answer!! There is not rail service to every location. Trucks are needed, and with the cost of diesel fuel the more freight they can haul the better off these truckers will be. They pay for their road use in the form of gas tax... which is substantial. The truckers are not getting rich as some have indicated. A large portion of their revenue goes right back into the truck with fuel, tires and safety improvements. I am sure everyone has noticed the rising cost of all goods, this is a direct relationship with the rising cost of fuel. This is truely an easy decision...yes!!!!

  • Dan - 11 years ago

    Rail is the safest way to go. GO RAIL!

  • Rail Roader - 11 years ago

    Rail is made for hauling heavy freight. The rail road makes sure it is hauled with safety coming first and on time. WIth trucks they are always tearing up roads and causing accidents. Most people have fear of driving around trucks where with trains they have their own rail system that stays maintained for everyones safety and do not cause accidents and deaths everyday like trucks.

  • Thomas P. O'Dwyer - 11 years ago

    The I-35 bridge in Minnesota did not collapse because the load was not spread out over enough axels. It collapsed because it had too much weight in total on the bridge. Many of our larger Interstate bridges were built 30, 40, 50 or more years ago, and were simply not designed for loads of nearly 50 tons in each vehicle.

    Neither are the streets in our cities. When the present trucks turn, they often block both sides of both streets at the intersection. Everything stops while the other vehicles get out of their way.

    We need to hold off making vehicles bigger and heavier until the truck operators pay FIRST to enlarge and strengthen the roadways and streets that they will use. My auto fits and the EPA wants to make it smaller!

  • Stephen Silverman - 11 years ago

    If we want to remain competitive & keep costs in line, increasing weights will help alleviate the capacity shortage of drivers ,enhance overall prodctivity, reduce congestion on our highways, save fuel, reduce miles, the sixth axle is proven safer and without question it is the right thing to do for our environment. Our major trading partners in Canada & Mexico understand the importance of heavier weights, we need to take the emotion out of this issue and be part of the solution and not part of the problem! It's the right time to move from the past & into the present with the rest of the world.

  • AP - 11 years ago

    Less big trucks the safer the highways will be. I know we need some big trucks to transportation reasons but I hate driving on the intersate and in big cities because of them. They are bad about speeding, running people off roads and breaking driving laws so they can get the freigh there on time. I also worry about if a truck driver has had enough sleep while he driving so he doesnt cause a accident, worry if they are on drugs or been drinking due to all of that not being overseen by supervision all the time. Plus I feel the truck load limit is to high for them already. To me moving goods by rail is so much more efficient. The rail roads have supervision over seeing all aspects of moving freight. From rail gangs repairing and maintaining the rail to the supervisiors seeing that engineer and conductors are in healthy condiditon to conduct the job safely to carman, laborers, electricians and machinist maintaining and upkeeping the locomotives and rail cars to make sure the are safe to travel the rail from location to location and to make sure they are safe enough to hold the products. You have train masters overseeing all locations of the trains to make sure trains get to their destinations on time and safely. With big trucks as heavy as they are now they destory public roads then tax payers money goes to fix them or they dont get fixed at all and people are driving on bad roads that was made that way by heavey trucks. With rail tax payers money doesnt have to keep paying for rail lines to replaced. The railroad uses their money to maintain them. I want to see more trains and a whole lot less more trucks.
    So that is a big NO on truck limit increased.

  • Chris Buttermore - 11 years ago

    Trucks are destroying the infrastucture that was designed to evecuate the masses from large cities and permit safe travel from urban to rural. Further the safety factor from trucks has plenty to be desired. The argument of raising wieght limits might put a few less trucks on the road but one train can take a lot more trucks off the road.

  • Aaron - 11 years ago

    The discussion should be to reduce the 80 K and hard enforcement of trucker’s qualifications and CDL laws.

  • Rachael - 11 years ago

    I do not believe that adding more weight to trucks would be a good idea. There more of a safety risk with having to many trucks on the road. The railroad was built to handle the weight and should be used for that purpose.

  • Djack - 11 years ago

    The railroads are designed to carry this heavy freight. Not severely damaged roads. It there will also be a greater risk of deaths on the roads. This is not smart on all counts.

  • Bob - 11 years ago

    97,000 pound trucks on the same road as my wife's 4,000 pound minivan? NO!!!!! Even with a 6th axle, trucks that heavy will cause more fatalities, more crashes, more congestion and more damage to public roads and bridges.

  • Corey Wells - 11 years ago

    The railroads are / were designed to carry this heavy freight. Not are severely damaged roads.

  • Patrick Kenny - 11 years ago

    Not only dangerous, but tears up the roads and increases taxpayer burden, damages personal vehicles, and the like!

  • J.A. Evans - 11 years ago

    Do not let our interstate system be degraded further by vehicles that were not designed to operate on this antiquated system.

  • TBB - 11 years ago

    I am appalled we we would even consider this legislation. Until we get a comprehensive transportation plan that addresses the already over-burdened infrastructure as well as increasing safety concerns, no changes should be made to truck size.

  • Ray Jones - 11 years ago

    Why should we as taxpayers pay for damaged roads that heavier truck loads cause. Let the railroads make the long haul and use the tax dollars for education.

  • Lyndsey - 11 years ago

    Let's take that weight burden off the roads and invest in better rail system!

  • Steve Davis - 11 years ago

    Truck caused wrecks and accidents are increasing in number... Just look at the huge East coast accident last week, where people were driving into fog. Truckers, should know better than to drive into anything like this... but they did, and the photos show the results of this catastrophe. We have on the order of one or two serious big truck caused road accidents a day, right here in Oklahoma City, at the crossroads of I40 and I35 and at times, the numbers go up. Today's truckers are not the knights of the road, by and large as they were in the 50's and 60's...of course they didn't go as fast back then either...but that is part of the problem.
    These drivers go way too fast...for conditions in traffic with other vehicles. I often see speeding tanker trucks, hauling gasoline...weaving in and out of traffic, what gives with this??? Driving 80 in a 60 mile limit. I suggest, to everyone who reads this drivel, to take the time to get the vehicle number off the side of the cab or fender, and look the company up on the Internet, and call their dispatcher, or safety officer, to let them know their driver is violating speed laws or is being discourteous.

  • Lloyd Cline - 11 years ago

    Heavier trucks on our highways are not safe. They destroy our roads and other infrastructure. They pollute our air and add to traffic congestion. Transportation by rail is much safer and more efficient with less pollution!!

  • Tammy Henderson - 11 years ago

    Being that I work for the railroad and we are transportation, trucks are heavy on all the roads. It costs a lot of money to repair all the damage trucks have done over these roads. Making them heavier is worse. More money being spent where it could be spent somewhere else if trucks were lighter and put on rail! Less trucks would be less wear and tear on the roads.

  • Tom Lucas - 11 years ago

    Allowing heavy trucks to use public roads is a direct subsidy to them. Railroads are much more efficient. And, the railroads maintain their own rail beds.

  • Brad - 11 years ago

    Bigger trucks are not the solution!

  • Nag - 11 years ago

    Less trucks, safer highways! Go Rail!!

  • Angela Clouser - 11 years ago

    No they should not be heavier

  • Andy Haraldson - 11 years ago

    Many other commenters have already written a lot about this, so I'll simply say that I'm an over-the-road trucker and can assert with some authority: this is a no-brainer. The trucks are already too big and too heavy. They're unsafe and destructive. If anything, weight and size limits should be lowered, not raised.

    The trucking industry wields a tremendous amount of conveniently unseen clout that allows it to do more or less anything in wants, laws notwithstanding. It routinely acts contrary to both public and its employees' welfare. It needs to be brought both into the light of public scrutiny and under control.

    Make no mistake: this is about profits and not anything else.

    That's all I'll say for now. Believe me, I could say a lot more, and I will; just in a venue where my words will be seen by more people. But it's up to the US news media to shine a light on the trucking industry so people know what's going on.

  • Dan New Jersey - 11 years ago

    Agreed it may save diesel. However, most roadways are not able to handle the 80k weight let alone 97k

  • Patricia Nathe - 11 years ago

    With the high cost fuel we need to be able to carry more weight per trip

  • Ekmel, Ja - 11 years ago

    Heavy trucks break pavement in predictable ways. At the University of Illinois, our Transportation Engineering textbook included a formula for determining how concrete pavement will crack open at the seams, as a function of axle weights. The Federal Highway Trust Fund has been essentially depleted by rebuilding roads with thicker and thicker pavements only to have them break in the same way by even heavier trucks than the rebuild was designed to support. The costs of these rebuilds have been draining the Fund faster than it has been replensihed by those doing the damage. Look, the Fund would have been gone a long time ago, if it were not for passenger automobiles subsidizing these big rigs.

  • TOM ELMORE - 11 years ago

    Actually -- some of us are old enough to remember when cities like Oklahoma City, for instance, were still criss-crossed by operational railway delivery tracks -- and when industries located their operations as near railroads as possible. Since those days, we've witnessed the very, very unwise deregulation and mega-monopoly consolidation of the US railway industry -- even as the trucking industry, for which the "National Defense Highway System" was REALLY built, continues the greedy demolition of the public road system it and the contracting industry stuck the taxpayers with back in 1955.

    If you think about it, widespread direct railway boxcar delivery made a good deal of sense. First of all, the railroads and the industries they served negotiated and covered the cost of access and maintenance, and then were forced to transparently incrementally and proportionally send these costs to the consumer through their sales prices. What happens to those costs when the taxpayers are unknowingly forced to cover them? They are taken out of the marketplace (where they were subject to the efficiency-producing power of market competition) and passed directly to taxpayers either as arbitrary taxation or ruined infrastructure.

    Talk about "a pig in a poke!" -- just as prescient author Helen Leavitt predicted decades back in her masterwork SUPERHIGHWAY - SUPERHOAX.

  • BobC - 11 years ago

    Do you really wanna see 100,000lbs GVW's in the hands of people who can barely manage 80k?
    I know I don't. Ya can't stop 80k so what makes anyone think they can stop 97k any easier?

    Tires, fuel, insurance must cost more & for what...So the carrier can make a few bucks extra?
    Does driver pay increase proportionaly to the added responsibility & longer times under a load?
    Not likely.

    What about the roads & bridges we all know are crap these days?
    Go ahead, add insult to injury by adding an additional almost 20k to the mix.

    I can just see it now, 97k in the hands of people who cant appreciate the dynamics of less than 80k.

    I think I need to learn to fly & just leave the hiway to the supertruckers.

Leave a Comment

0/4000 chars

Submit Comment

Create your own.

Opinions! We all have them. Find out what people really think with polls and surveys from Crowdsignal.