Give others the chance to vote.
Share this poll, because the more votes the better.
Create your own.
Opinions! We all have them. Find out what people really think with polls and surveys from Crowdsignal.
closed
Share this poll, because the more votes the better.
Opinions! We all have them. Find out what people really think with polls and surveys from Crowdsignal.
Roads and bridges in other countries that allow heavier trucks are generally built to withstand such weight. In this country, existing roads and bridges generally have not been built to withstand even existing truck weights, let alone much heavier trucks. If we started now to reconstruct or replace existing roads and bridges, by perhaps 2050 we could increase truck weights to match limits set in other nations. But increasing truck weights before increasing weight capacity of roads invites massive failure of existing highway infrastructure.
Paying the cost of stronger highways would require massively increased spending on highway and bridge construction -- meaning massive increases in existing taxes -- particularly those levied on trucks --used to fund such work. Increasing taxes on trucks would severely handicap their ability to compete with railroads, and thus would be very unpopular in the trucking industry.
A fundamental U.S. problem is our refusal to fully pay for what we want, particularly roads, bridges, railroads, underground utilities and other essentials for modern society. Allowing higher truck weights while continuing to under-fund all of these facilities invites functional decline of our nation's capacity to function.
More simply, increasing truck weight limits before providing roads and bridges designed to carry heavier weight is STUPID!!
No......No........Less interstate LTL......More TL frieght going interstate at the current 8oooo lb limit......Need to look at what % of trucks are going interstate LTL.......
They run around 100k gross in Europe, Mexico, and Canada. Somehow everyone else seems to manage without massive truck carnage. Somehow we can't manage what they can even though we have this interstate highway system. Oh and btw, before someone says that "Europe ships everything by train" google Freight share by mode US Europe. They ship more by truck than we do.
I read some of the comments ,and it looks like most of the people that wrote in has to be scabs. They talk about doing things by rail, don't they realize that once it gets to the destination it has to be shipped by truck. Our roads are bad enough without raising the weight limit, these people do not no how dangerous that extra weight could be, I no I drove for thirty six years, probably in some of the worst snow storms any one will see. Try stopping 97,000 in the snow. Good luck to the vehicles that are near by.
I read some of the comments ,and it looks like most of the people that wrote in has to be scabs. They talk about doing things by rail, don't they realize that once it gets to the destination it has to be shipped by truck. Our roads are bad enough without raising the weight limit, these people do not no how dangerous that extra weight could be, I no I drove for thirty six years, probably in some of the worst snow storms any one will see. Try stopping 97,000 in the snow. Good luck to the vehicles that are near by.
I read some of the comments ,and it looks like most of the people that wrote in has to be scabs. They talk about doing things by rail, don't they realize that once it gets to the destination it has to be shipped by truck. Our roads are bad enough without raising the weight limit, these people do not no how dangerous that extra weight could be, I no I drove for thirty six years, probably in some of the worst snow storms any one will see. Try stopping 97,000 in the snow. Good luck to the vehicles that are near by.
I've been driving trucks for over 25 years. Driving is getting more dangerous every day and increasing the weight limits( I've hauled heavy loads up to 120,000lbs) is just going to amplify the hazards. More weight means longer stopping distances, more stress on already weak bridges and more damage to the roadways. Bring trailer lengths back down to 48 feet, keep the weight at 80K. We all want to get home safely.
80 LBS is hard enough to control on decent roads in good weather.
We already have a dangerous enough job as it is.
Our current roads are In worse condition than they have been since they were built, trucks are also older and cheaper built than they used to be AND, in case no one has noticed there are fewer jobs than there use to be.
The proposed change would increase the dange and increase unemployment that would in turn decrease wages. I for one am sick and tired of working harder and earning less and thats what this change would produce.
Until there are better roads, health care available for all drivers and some kind of recognition thst we ALL deserve a decent and meaningful wage increase I would not support this!
On this issue, alone, irresponsible, sold-out congressmen and senators like Oklahoma's James Lankford, Tom Coburn and Jim Inhofe should be sent packing.
In their home state, the fruits of bigger, heavier trucks -- and the destruction by the Oklahoma Department of Transportation of important rail lines -- has brought about over $100 billion in "unfunded highway maintenance requirement," up from "$40 billion" in 2002 and "$11 billion" in 1996. Still -- these people belong to and work for the perpetual-corporate-welfare-supported-special-interest trucking and highway contracting lobbies -- and NOT for the people of their home state and nation.
In Oklahoma -- there's been no intermodal rail terminal -- not one -- since 2005. In Oklahoma, ODOT -- which now tells us "it doesn't want to be in the railroad business" -- has liquidated over 400 miles of formerly state-owned rail while quite deliberately destroying Oklahoma City Union Station 's 12-track-wide, 8-block-long rail yard, last grand urban rail passenger center in the West with all its original train-handling space intact -- to make way for the entirely unnecessary relocation of FOUR MILES of urban expressway (at a true cost easily exceeding $250 million per mile...). In Oklahoma, the operators of the 18-wheeler inflicting 9,600 times the pavement damage at its maximum legal weight done by any automobile pays 3 cents less state fuel tax per gallon than the auto operator -- while the trucking industry pays less than 10% of annual tag and registration fees received by the state.
Meanwhile, less than one-third of revenues comprising the vaunted "Federal Highway Trust Fund" come from the ONLY vehicular damagers of first tier roads -- the commercial trucking industry. NOBODY in government is holding commercial trucking to account for the massive, unrepaid costs it visits on public highways. No futher competitive advantage should be given to trucking until user-cost accountability is again established through updated Highway Cost Allocation Studies based on the proven Equity-Ratio model -- and strict cost accountability demanded by all levels of government and strictly enforced. (Even AASHTO is said to have long-since abandoned any effort to bring about equitable user-cost retreival!)
By the way -- who is it that fails to understand that every single OUNCE of any truck passing over our nation's bridges is fully absorbed by those structures? Where's the money going to come from that will be required to much-more-rapidly replace all bridges built to original Interstate Highway standards?
Surface transportation marketplace competition has been methodically destroyed -- and replaced with corrupt new alliances among mega-monopoly railroad bosses, trucking bosses, heavy construction industry bosses and their co-dependent puppets in elected office. This is the real problem. The only way to fix the problem is to bring each mode using public infrastructure to strict user-cost accountability -- part of which ought to be the cost of a blanket of motor-carrier safety, security and size-and-weight enforcement across the nation.
Cost retrieval from heavy commercial trucks should probably now be implemented through moment-to-moment digital transponder reporting via the GPS sattelite constellation based on weight-over-distance. No reason that trucking -- and protection of the taxpayers' roadway system -- should be held immune from recent technological advances.
As to our railroads -- time to break 'em up and re-regulate them. They should be held once again to strict common-carrier standards, including fast passenger, mail and express freight services, serving the shipping public instead of vice-versa.
97,000 lb trucks? Make 'em pay what they ought to be paying for road use, and the trucking industry itself will drop this "bright idea" -- and go find trains to carry its trailers and containers!
with heavier truck weights would come trailers with better suspensions and more axles to ease the load on the infrastructure, better braking systems to insure safety, more efficient power units meet epa standards while pulling extra weight. The variable or weak link that remains is the driver. Professional union drivers would be easier to remediate and update driver skill sets than would independant o/o s.
say what you will....america moves by truck...
People say ship by rail, I have never seen a track run to every business out there. You need trucks to deliver but there is to many on the highways not loaded. We lost are big trucking companys years ago to low rates which created every joe having a truck on the road. 48 ft trailers are big enough, loaded properly. Raising limits will probably turn into 58 ft trailer someday.
Have you ever driven a 48ft trailer? They are dangerous enough. The wind catches them dangerously and wrecks involving that much mass and force are catastrophic. To increase this is an idea only a person not involved could come up with. Detachment is a dangerous illusion supported by economic math and not real life.
As a former truck driver I feel that anything larger than a 48' trailer is a danger not only to the truck driver, but to the general public as well... Please reconsider this regulation change... There are too many drivers out there that have no consideration for truck drivers much less any one else... I saw some really nasty accidents as a truck driver and have seen many more since I have worked in other fields... Anything larger in the city would be absolutely insane... If you really need to move large amounts of product then consider moving it by rail
I drove 49 states and all of Canada for 29 years as an owner operator and company driver and witnessed everything imaginable on the highways . When I first began my driving career it was mostly two lane highways and watched the interstates grow to what they are today. With an aging population on the roads today this younger generation of truck drivers could care less about safety and road conditions than any bunch I have witnessed in the last ten years for everyones safety just say no to heavier trucks. That is especially true on the grades in the wetern US mountains.
Still don't think the trailers should have been no longer then 48 feet long its a safety hazard in most cities and towns,and to raise the weight is a joke not to mention a safety hazard also
I agree with a man who posted up near the top. Heavier trucks cause more destruction in crashes, leaving deaths easy to occur and hairpin turns nearly impossible to achieve if the driver isn't fully paying attention or is going too fast, therefore again, causing death easier.
Seriously?????
Without trucks.....America stalls!!!!!!!!!!
Teamsters know what they are talking about ....
The roads are bad anyway. that's the last thing we need, they already are a safety hazard. they over destroying the roads, lets ship by rail.
Bigger trucks are a high horsepower polluting hazard wreaking havoc to bridges and highway infrastructure .
Trucks do not pay their fair share for infrastructure use and impact. Given the state of our highway and bridge infrastructure coupled with the lack of investment this should be an issue for all concerned.
I say no! Trucks are already wreaking havoc with the infrastructure. Making them heavier will increase the rate of that damage, and increase risk for the travelling public. Isn't it obvious they're too long and too heavy already?
Trucks are a safety hazard on our congested highways. Increased truck weights will cause more deaths and injuries from truck crashes.
First, we hear how dangerous trucks "from Mexico" would be on our highways; now we're informed but it's OK to increase a truck's weight over 20% to 97,000 pounds; of course, with that, soon triple trailers will be the norm. As Aretha Franklin said, "Who's zooming who?"
Had the railroads initially not suffered so severely from "marketing myopia," according to that terrific HBR article, this would not even be an issue. However, as the railroads have returned from the dead, there is absolutely no substitute for the economics of moving freight, merchandise, intermodal, coal, chemicals, etc. via rail. Why do our railroads offer so many "hot" fast freights now for time-sensitive customers if this was not true?
Trucking should concentrate on their given niche-moving the containers to their final destination from the intermodal yard, which does not require 97 THOUSAND POUNDS dependent upon 1 driver to embrace all expectations of safety. As well, now that we are learning of the huge cost to state roads from all the trucks/equipment related to fracking, so who intends to pay for the obvious quick destruction of our interstates, highways, bridges, etc. when daily beaten up by 97K pound trucks?
As it has taken us since 1984 to revitalize the rail industry to the point of significantly supporting our economy, let us not delve into the urge for repetitive compulsion to continue to make the wrong decisions in transportation & think for a moment that a 97,000 pound truck is the answer!
We are tree farmers: the only efficient and reasonable method to move our product (logs) from our site to the mills is trucks--other methods are nonsense.
Who would police the trucking industry to be certain the trucks are equipped with the 6th axle? Some small local trucking company with only a handful of employees and a small budget that's barely meeting its payroll will opt to gamble and keep the older trucks. Can they afford new 6-axle trucks? Probably not. They hope and pray they don't cause an accident. But eventually they will. Oh sure, the trucking company will be fined, but if the accident has caused a traffic fatality, will that fine bring back the lost loved one?
And let's not forget the greedy trucking companies that will increase the number of trucks on the road simply because heavier trucks, more freight, more profit. So I can't agree that the number of trucks on the highways will be reduced. America will always need her trucking industry. So why can't the railroads and trucking industry work together to move our freight? Support Intermodal...everyone wins.
When your hauling too much for the interest of public safety its time to go back to trains. I have personaly seen what a 60' made of 3 x 20' trailoers can do in an accident as a result of fog decapitation aint pretty !
that's another 17,000 pounds to crush an auto when the truck slams into an auto as a result of tailgating and the truck driver isn't paying attention when the auto slows or has to stop account of a drive ahead of him
No......No........Less interstate LTL......More TL frieght going interstate at the current 8oooo lb limit......Need to look at what % of trucks are going interstate LTL.......
Even if some claim trucks are safer and there will be less trucks driving on the road because they will be able to carry more, I think truck companies will still put the same amount of trucks on the road along with the heavier load simply because they will profit from the lift in truck weights. They will increase their quotas and put heavier, more dangerous trucks on our roadways. Even though trucks have better force and suspension systems, they still carry a whopping 97,000 pounds, which in the end will destroy our roads.
Diesel fuel prices continue to increase and put mounting pressure on American jobs and American made and grown products. Increasing truck weights is vital to our economy at both the Federal and State levels. We have better braking systems, better suspension systems, better equipment designs, and better monitoring, heavier loads are logical for more efficient transporting of freight. This makes sense by improving the efficiency of the truck force, reducing numbers of trips, improving traffic congestion and saving fuel. Reducing miles driven equals fewer accidents, less injuries, and savings for the consumers who purchase all of those goods being shipped.
More weight per truck means fewer trucks... Hard to understand how that wouldn't reduce congestion, be at least neutral on wear-and-tear on roads, and improve safety.
I know the transportation of goods is necessary, but I'm very fearful of driving next to trucks or in front of them. I don't like the way they swerve. I don't like the way they come up behind me like they can't stop or slow down. If they get any heavier, there are bound to be more accidents. I also don't like how they make the potholes bigger just by rolling close to them. Any heavier and the trucks will be a problem to keeping the roads in driving shape.
I dread driving to work on the interstate as the amount of truck traffic has been increasing. It is becoming more and more dangerous for us "railroaders" to get to work every day. Making trucks bigger and heavier is definitely not the answer. Our roads are really feeling the additional traffic which makes us poor taxpayers bear the burden. Go Rail!!!
Why is this even up for vote? Trucks are already wreaking havoc with the infrastructure. Making them heavier will increase the rate of that damage, and increase risk for the travelling public. Isn't it obvious they're too long and too heavy already?
They already think they own the road. When they get into packs in both lanes on any interstate they are road hazards. Been there - three trucks on the right being passed by two trucks on the left. Took twenty miles! and the backup behind was monumental! They should be banned from the left lane except in designated areas and the police need to enforce.
Taking it to the extreme but: Do you think it is a good idea to allow go cart tracks to allow me to take my Nissan thru the course. Sure its bigger than the go carts but I could carry more passengers and the track operator could save on equipment and fuel. He might have to raise everyones ticket price to help maintain the track but as long as I followed the rules everyone would be safe. Just something to think about.
Heavier trucks only serve to increase the danger to the travelling public as there is no separation between these heavy trucks and automobiles. In addition, heavier trucks cause more wear and tear on a highway infrastructure that is already overburdened and looking for ways to be funded. What this country needs is a comprehensive transportation policy that focuses in on the best way to move freight long distances in a safe, economical and more friendly environmental manner. While there will always be a role for trucking, turning our highways into trains of trucks with increasing weights is not the answer.
No comment
It is hard to support longer and heavier trucks on our already stressed highway. No one disputes last mile will require trucks but that can be done with existing truck loads so why ask for heavier trucks. Our roads will be safer when trucks are used primarily for shorter haul.
If we are truely worried about safety of the traveling public and the integrity of the roadway infrastructure, then heavier truck loads do not support either. The roads are clogged with trucks now, and if heavier loads are the objective, then rail is far more efficient and safe. That is why railroads exist, to do the heavy hauling that can never be challenged by trucks. No matter how the question is phrased nor the answer spun. Simply look at the results.
It is a safety hazard and roads are already to congested. As infrastructure is crumbling.
Put more freight on rail and keep the roads clear of trucks that are over loaded.
Trucks not only damage the highways and bridges of our interstate and secondary roads, they also don't pay near their share in taxes to pay for the repairs. Increasing their weight will have disatrous results.
Also heavier trucks will cause more deaths on the roads in that the drivers of these heavier loads will have less stopping ability or control in rain or snow impaired conditions, thereby creating more horrific traffic accidents and resulting deaths.
With the advent of better braking systems, better suspension systems, better equipment designs, and better monitoring, heavier loads are logical for more efficient transporting of freight. Unfortunately even rail freight has to be sent to its final destination by truck. Why not do it as efficiently as possible?
It is hard to believe that anyone could honestly support longer and heavier trucks
With out trucking,America stops. All of you ignoring the obvious, go ahead and fight this. Then go to your Walmarts and Targets and see if they put in rail road tracks to deliver your food and clothes!!!! Think about people before you slam logistics!!!!
Way too many sleepy, poorly-trained, repeat-criminal offender truckers on the roads. Someone needs to provide justice to these domestic terrorists on wheels--put them behind bars or at least, off the road.
NO commercial licenses for felons and terorrists.
I personally know that in the casethat killed my son and 4 others, another foot would have likely killed several more people and the 50000 lbs he was carrying did more than enough damage so no, heavier trucks are NOT a goid idea!
What we need are driverless trucks.
If only a neutral, objective institution would study this issue and report back so that we can all work with the same set of facts...oh wait, the DOT is studying it now! So what's the big rush to change the weight limits before the DOT finishes its study? Afraid to face the facts?
WE need that 6th axle to be safe and not cause road damages. We need the additional weight increase to be competitive with the rest of the world.
yes definately, the rail system is the way to go!!
No matter how many axles you add to a 97,000 lb truck you do not change the total mass of the truck. It is this extra mass that damages bridges and makes accidents worse. 97,000 lbs trucks will have even more difficulty keeping up with traffic flows which will directly lead to more accidents.
I lost a son to a grossly overloaded truck. They cannot pull hills at safe speeds. They roll over easier. Funny how the advocates of a sixth axle never mention this.
When you increase the efficiency (profitability) of shipping by truck, you increase trucking density. The notion that bigger trucks reduce their number is false. Make trucking a less desirable form of transporting goods (by imposing reasonable safety measures) and the market sorts it out.
I already dread the huge trucks coming down behind me from Canada at night on I-91 at more -- sometimes a lot more -- than 65 mph. A Vermont state trooper admitted to me that these trucks speed.
Our area roundabouts, although new, seem not designed to handle trucks of even the current size: I have to turn pretty tightly in a Camry.
We ordinarily get a lot of snow here. This makes the roundabouts harder to negotiate in a sedan, let alone in even the current size of semi.
Making the trucks larger is simply unsafe for the rest of us.
As to the proposal in comments for a 6th axle on larger trucks, it sounds as if the 80,000 ton trucks already on the roads need 6th axles. And just who would police trucks to make sure that they had these?
Hell no. This is why we have trains and rail systems. *facepalm*. Our infrastructure is in ruins already.
If you ship by rail and are a captive customer you understand why heavier trucks would make A LOT of sense. Albeit with the right axles and speed limits per some of the comments above. HEAVY TRUCKS MAKE SENSE FOR BUSINESS. And they would in turn take MORE trucks OUT of the roads, thus creating an instant relief to traffic issues in cities and highways. The infrastructure is more than capable of handling heavy loads; but incapable of expanding exponentially to what the freight industry will become in a few months-years when this economy takes off again. Combined infrastructure = efficiency. Heavy trucks on rail? PERFECT.
Most of the acidents on our highways are due to large trucks and or overtired drivers. No one person should be allowed to drive for 11 hours straight. This is an accident waiting to happen.
With fuel costs and dependance on expensive foreign fuel sources increasing , it is time to look for cheaper ways of shipping food and goods. Why not take advantage of the huge railway system we have!!!!!! A cheaper and more affective way for moving goods from place to place already exists....IT'S CALLED THE RAIL SYSTEM!!!!!!!!!!
I survived a crash in which the driver of an 18-wheeler fell asleep and smashed into the back of my father's car while he was driving. I broke my back and he broke his neck, but we both survived. That accident RUINED my life. I have permanent facial injuries, I've had to get two nasal surgeries for the broken nose from the accident, and I have lifelong chronic pain.
Imagine what would happen if a driver of one of these proposed monsters fell asleep or made a mistake.. There are already so many truck-related accidents and deaths. There have to be more efficient ways to move products, without putting people's lives in danger and without destroying our roadways, which, I might add, are made and repaired with our tax dollars.
Truck traffic is already dangerious. A student of mine lost her father and her grandmother. They were crushed between two trucks when the second very heavy truck could not stop in time. My student survived, but I can only imagine what she still lives with!
Many drivers of course are excellent, yet too many drive like sports cars, weaving in and out from lane to lane on I-95. Don't add more weight to what are too often too dangerous loads. Rob Carson
Heavier trucks are not the answer. They are more dangerous, use more polluting fuel, and tear up our roadways. Heavy cargo should be moved more efficiently by ship and or rail.
those big trucks belong on the backs of rail cars, local delivery is almost always smaller vehicles
I am licensed to drive doubles and triples and they scare me pulling them. the more weight hanging behind the tow vehicle is more weight to try and control and there are still only two tires steering.
You can't change the laws of physics just by legislation
Bob
These extra long trucks are a safety hazard besides do a great amount of damage to the freeways as well as other roads. As we taxpayers pay for freeways and public roads, I doubt if the huge trucks pay enough extra to really pay for the damage they cause. They also cause more pollution than rail. Instead of bigger and longer trailers, they need to put the trailers on the rail system.
Congestion on our roads has increased dramatically since the early 1980's. Diesel fuel prices continue to increase and put mounting pressure on American jobs and American made and grown products.
Increasing truck weights is vital to our economy at both the Federal and State levels. To do this, the trucks should be equipped with a sixth axle to improve safety and reduce pavement wear. When increasing truck weights from 80,000 lbs to 97,000 lbs, the addition of a sixth axle actually lowers the weight on each tire and therefore possible damage to the road. Additionally, the additional axle reduces the required stopping distance despite the increased weight.
We look at this from several vantage points. First, moving freight efficiently, thus lowering costs, reducing emissions and providing a more effective return on capital. Secondly, from the safety perspective, adding a sixth axle to existing-sized trucks compensates for the additional weight, creating better braking effectivness. Thirdly, states have created a patchwork of higher weight limits on roads less able to bear the traffic because the federal rate has lagged. Finally, as a shipper, we want each mode to be as efficient and safe as possible and this proposal helps create that space.
It seems that the trucking lobby got its input in quite quickly. Only Mark J. Dingle states the obvious: trucks are already too large and too damaging. It is also true that highway safety would be improved if the maximum load were reduced to 60,000 (already a great challenge to the law of physics when brakes are applied) and if the maximum speed were reduced to 55 mph. Today one out of 20 highway accidents involve large trucks (the mass of the trucks negates the meaningless defense of who was at fault). The following facts are found at http://www.mcaleerlaw.com/CM/TruckingandCommercialVehicleAccidents/Trucking-Accident-Facts-and-Statistics.asp:
"In 2003, there were 58,512 total vehicle accidents involved in fatal crashes in the U.S. of which 4,669 involved large trucks. Large trucks are much more likely to be involved in a fatal multi-vehicle crash than are passenger vehicles. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety notes that in crashes involving large trucks and other vehicles, 98% of the fatalities occur to the people in passenger vehicles. "
Trucks are not safe. They require huge subsidies--subsidies denied the railroads. The trucking industry should at the very least be required to compete with the rails on an even playing field--with the net cost of railroad v. highway construction, maintenance and accidents factored in.
Adding a 6th axle will improve braking and reduce psi on roads. This makes sense by improving the efficiency of the truck force, reducing numbers of trips, improving traffic congestion and saving fuel.
We have coal trucks up to 125,000 lbs here in Kentucky. They destroy our public roads and bridges and the taxpayers pay the expense. They terrorize people on public highways. They cant stop, the brakes fail, the wheels fall off, they crash into houses and churches. They arent subject to interstate commerce laws about hours driven, so the drivers are tired and cranky and on drugs.
See my You Tube Video "Coal Trucks Gone Wild."
Bigger payload less miles less fuel not rocket séance.
Listen to science here....not emotion. Adding a sixth axle to trucks will enable them to haul 97,000 pounds just as safely as current 80,000 pound rigs.....and road wear and tear will be reduced with a sixth axle and four more tires on the road. This option will also reduce the number of trucks on the road as well as the overall miles driven. Reduced miles driven equals less accidents, less injuries, less facilities.
Yes vote based on trucks being equipped with a sixth axle to improve safety and reduce pavement wear and/or to give states the option.
use the science, not emotion or false information from the RAIL lobby
Increasing gas mileage and reducing congestion through the use of six axles is the right thing to do! In regards to those concerned about safety, the sixth axle enables braking distance to be only ONE foot worse than the 5-axle trucks. The weight impact per tire on the pavement is also decreased by 35 lbs - this decreases the amount of wear & tear on our roads. The US DOT estimates that this weight limit increase will DECREASE diesel fuel consumption by 19% - a savings of 2 BILLION gallons annually!
Reduce the max weight limit to 60,000 lbs, max length trailer length to 40 feet, and no doubles, let alone triples, and governors to limit the maximum speed to 55 mph.
Increasing truck weight capacity by insuring they have the proper number of axles and giving states the flexibility to meet their specific infrastructure standards makes sense. This proposal would decrease the number of trucks, on our highways, it make the industry more efficient and decrease our overall freight costs for the goods and services that we all ultimately pay for.
Citizen groups like National Taxpayers Union support truck-weight reform too, because it helps to relieve congestion, save fuel, and increase efficiency without creating any costly new federal programs. It's time we caught up with the rest of the world and provided some sensible flexibility to our transportation system.
Increasing weight limits enhances productivity and is environmentally the right thing to do.
The data is clear. Twenty-two states already permit a truck weight higher than 80,000 lbs. What this poll doesn't ask is should states have the option to increase truck weight limits on federal roads. The answer is a resounding yes.
Most people are misinformed on this important issue. This change makes sense.
It would allow trucks to move freight safely and more efficiently using fewer truck loads, while reducing accidents, fuel use, congestion, vehicle miles traveled, CO2 emissions and road wear. It would also reduce heavy haul trucking costs by 15-20%. Current U.S. interstate truck weight laws are nearly 30 years old and hinder the ability of our nation's motor carriers to safely and efficiently move products across the U.S. interstate system. Since the current weight limit was set, there have been significant improvements in technology and truck design – making a fresh look at increasing truck weight limits long overdue.
Congress should change federal highway laws to allow interstate weight limits of up to 97,000 pounds, but only for trucks equipped with six axles instead of the typical five. The additional axle maintains braking and weight-per-tire specifications so trucks can safely carry more freight. Taxpayers would bear no incremental cost for this legislation.
Allowing the use of these more efficient trucks would enable companies to move the same amount of freight with fewer trucks, benefitting the environment, reducing road wear and significantly decreasing overall transportation costs.
I like semis but making them heavier is a bad idea. If they get heavier its harder to stop harder to control etc. etc. If anything train should become longer. Each train carries truckloads of goods at one time. I know people would say NO trains are to slow, but if a truck were to go back and forth with as many truck loads as a train it would take a long time. Plus more truck loads on trains means less trucks on roads. Truckers will say to that NO I need my job, but the railroad needs many employees right now but trains arent going to take away trucking so theres no need for concern there. When concerns like this come into account you should make a list of pros an cons, if the pros outweigh the cons then the idea propositition etc. Should be brought to official federal attention instead of wasting time on something dangeoures.
Poorly phrased question. The 97,000-pound truck is certainly safe, AS LONG AS IT'S EQUIPPED WITH A SIXTH AXLE, for improved braking and lower pavement impact. Why is the sixth-axle stipulation not mentioned in the question? I get the feeling rail monopolists drafted the polling question for you.
Trucking is an inefficient and dangerous method of transporting large loads. The trucking industry enjoys huge subsidies from the nation's right of ways while subjecting them to stresses far in excess of those caused by other vehicles. The trucks are already too large. I have watched semi after semi in my local community run their rear wheels over curbs in making a right turn without enough clearance. The constant pounding has destroyed the corner at the intersection where the length of their trailers does not permit them to turn without jumping the curb. Just one small example.
Trucking is an inefficient and dangerous method of transporting large loads. The trucking industry enjoys huge subsidies from the nation's right of ways while subjecting them to stresses far in excess of those caused by other vehicles. The trucks are already too large. I have watched semi after semi in my local community run their rear wheels over curbs in making a right turn without enough clearance. The constant pounding has destroyed the corner at the intersection where the length of their trailers does not permit them to turn without jumping the curb. Just one small example.
Go Rail!