It’s time for an 'adult conversation' on longer, heavier trucks

[kscarbel2]

Fleet Owner  / September 16, 2016

Former ATA leader Bill Graves, NACFE program manager cite need for movement on truck productivity

One of the biggest hot-button issues in the trucking industry in recent years has been efforts to move legislation through Congress that would authorize longer and/or heavier trucks.

Groups such as the American Trucking Assns. (ATA) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce among others have pushed the efforts forward. Generally, the proposals feature 33-ft. twin trailers or 96,000 lb. trailers equipped with three axles to maintain weight balance. Those proposals have not found enough traction yet to pass, though.

Despite some evidence that suggest 33-ft. trailers are no more dangerous than current 28-ft. models, or that properly equipped 96,000 lb. trailers do no more damage to roads, opponents have managed to stop these efforts.

In 2015, when the Dept. of Transportation shut down the possibility of a program, DOT Under Secretary Peter Rogoff wrote in a letter that “at this time, the department believes that the current data limitations are so profound that the results cannot accurately be extrapolated to predict national impacts. As such, DOT believes that no changes in the relevant truck size and weight laws and regulations should be considered until these data limitations are overcome.”

DOT said much the same thing in April of this year when it formally rejected efforts to expand truck size and weights.

To Bill Graves, former president and CEO of ATA, the logic doesn’t follow. Speaking at the Meritor and Pressure Systems International 2016 Annual Fleet Technology Event in San Antonio this week, Graves said that Congress needs to address the freight productivity of tractor-trailers, and it starts with size and weight.

“I don’t see how we can keep up with demands [of a growing economy] … and keep pulling the same weight,” he said. “The fact that we can’t have an adult conversation about it in Congress is a problem. We need to address truck productivity.”

Rick Mihelic, program manager of the North America Council for Freight Efficiency, echoed Graves’ statements. Mihelic noted that freight demand continues to increase and density per truck (how much freight is loaded into a trailer) continues to increase yet due to many factors, including hours-of-service, the number of miles driven per truck has declined for the past 15 years.

“This is where the discussion has to start,” he said. “How do you solve that? Either you get more drivers or you give each truck the ability to haul more freight.”

The Coalition for Transportation Productivity (CTP), a group of nearly 200 of the nation’s manufacturers, shippers, carriers and allied associations, has been pushing Congress for action on the issue for several years.

In a letter and accompanying one-page brief to Congress from CTP Executive Director John Runyan, the organization cited U.S. DOT technical findings that six-axle trucks weighing either 91,000 or 97,000 lbs. maintain key braking and handling characteristics, allowing them to safely ship more freight and reduce vehicle miles traveled, logistics and pavement costs, and environmental impacts. The technical report also finds that the use of these vehicles would lead to a minimal diversion of freight from rail to truck, which would be more than offset by projected freight rail growth.

“The actual study data provides strong support for allowing trucks equipped with six axles to carry more freight on Interstate System highways,” Runyan wrote. “This is the real message for Congress, despite the fact that U.S. DOT political leadership, after three years of study and 1,100 pages of released data, wrote a cover letter citing insufficient information and recommending against any changes in truck size and weight regulations. While the Administration could not find a political path to support truck weight reform, we urge members of Congress to review the study findings for themselves and allow carefully crafted reforms in vehicle weight regulation to move forward.” 

Others, though, including safety groups and the Teamsters, have fought the idea.

"The claim that fewer trucks will be an end-product of truck size and weight increases simply isn't true," Jim Hoffa, Teamsters general president, has said in the past. "This is about safety and ensuring as safe a workplace for our driver members on the highways as anyone working on a factory floor."

Albeit a small sample size, but in early 2015, a Maine state official attributed a drop in highway fatalities in part to a federal pilot program that was allowing heavier tractor-trailers with six axles rated up to 100,000-lbs. GCW on all interstate highways in Maine.

“Commercial vehicle related fatalities dropped in 2014 to 10 fatalities compared to 18 in 2013,” James Tanner, fatal accident system analyst for the Maine Bureau of Highway Safety, said in a Bangor Daily News story. “Maine averaged 16.2 commercial vehicle related crash fatalities from 2009 to 2013. Overall, Maine has experienced a decrease in the number of commercial vehicle related fatalities from 2009 when we experienced 23 commercial vehicle related fatalities.”

 

[mrsmackpaul]

Before reading any further please dont anyone take offence

I was talking about how backwards the US trucking industry is compared to the rest of the world today as in the trailers that are required to haul heavy loads over size loads etc even the normal semi trailer the US has is all ass about nothing is matched to what the rest of the world does, the US hasnt even tried to make anything normal

Take the B double and or B triple we use out here or the quad road trains the are all in 20 foot or 40 foot groups or there abouts to match shipping containers so even if its load into a trailer you pull up at the other end and it will fit in a container  not a container and a bit or in the case of the 28 foot trailer mentioned above like really how does all this mess work 

Im sure you have all seen the you tube clips with large over sized load on a US trailer that just tips over even when its parked still, Australia NZ and Europe have trailers that widen out real wide to carry over width loads stable as 

Even low loaders that the rest of the world use now have the whole deck flat no going up over a hump for the trailer axles 

The US transport industry standing from the out side looking in seems to be all out of kilter compared to the rest of the world or at least thats the way it seems to me and it must have a impact on the ability of the US to trade with the rest of the world 

Even the fwy system is now behind the rest of the world the over pass bridges are a lot lower imagine if cattle trucks could carry two full decks of cattle instead of 1 a half decks 

We have cattle trains out here each crate on the train is 40 foot and goes on the same as 40 foot shipping container  just think a triple road train pulls up 6 decks of cattle all in 40 foot sections 6 crates on the train 

Right back in the begging in Australia cattle trailers and the pens on them were built to match rail wagons the first shipping containers used in Australia were built to fit trucks and trains all this makes for quicker turn arounds and freight getting shifted faster and cheaper and as such everyone benefits 

Anyway enough waffle from me but if you gunna change it all try and get it right I would have thought but Im only a farmer so I wouldnt know anything 

 

seeya 

 

Paul

[BC Mack]

Paul...

if you really want to offend them... talk about going metric just like the rest of the planet..!!!! 

however, you are correct... in a world of increasing trade the ISO container was meant to replace conventional boxvans, everyone should be pulling skeletals... I recently saw a unit heading for Vancouver Port with 3 20ft containers, see if I can find a photo of it somewhere.

agree with you that the trailer will be the new focus.

this old photo is from 80's, most 40ft flats had twistlocks as loads could differ day to day.

BC Mack

[mrsmackpaul]

Gotta say even though I was brought up in the metric era, I still prefer feet and inches. It's quicker and more accurate for most things I do.

But it is important to at least have the ability to work in metric if you have to, and better if you can work in both.

And yes, most flat top trailers in Australia have three way pins so can have 2 x 20 1 x 40 or 1 x 20 heavy container in the middle.

I think I have asked this before. Does the US have curtain sided taut liner trailers like the rest of the world?? They would be the most popular trailer in Australia now.

Paul 

[j hancock]

Yes, there are curtain side trailers here.  I see quite a few used by various companies in the of delivery plywood, OSB, etc.

[kscarbel2]

Curtain sided trailer usage is extremely limited in the US, versus Europe and Australia where they are mainstream.

[mrsmackpaul]

3 minutes ago, kscarbel2 said:

Curtain sided trailer usage is extremely limited in the US, versus Europe and Australia where they are mainstream.

that makes no sense to me at all curtain sided trailers are so much quicker to load and unload there must be a good reason why they havent be adopted in the US 

[kscarbel2]

11 minutes ago, mrsmackpaul said:

that makes no sense to me at all curtain sided trailers are so much quicker to load and unload there must be a good reason why they havent be adopted in the US 

I know Paul, I know. But old habits die hard. At one time the benchmark for the world, the US truck market today is behind the curve. 

[TeamsterGrrrl]

The american trucking industry is best defined by a simple term= "cheap". Last I checked a curtainsider costs $20k or so more than a van trailer, so they do the cheap thing and ignore the productivity benefits of a curtainsider for multi drop distribution work.

[HeavyGunner]

Could see from a mile away this conversation going as the typical US is dumb and stupid. How come Americans are  supposed to be so open to everyone else's ideas and methods but on here there are a few that do nothing but bash how stupid, dumb, cheap, backwards, behind the times we are? I could be rude and say a few things but I won't. Ever consider why we truck the way we do?  Maybe it's because weights and regs are state by state which directly ties in to our free choice in our democracy i.e. Let the states decide for themselves. Ever wonder why US trucking companies are "cheap"?  Likely because we have a ton of companies and entrepreneurs fighting for every load in a cut throat business and don't forget the railroad as well.  I think American trucking companies are far more sophisticated and crafty than they are given credit for. They have to be to stay afloat. Then again people like me couldn't possibly know because I pull an A train not the much more sophisticated, desirable, better B train. I know the "American trucking business" are dumb supporters are few on here but I still think they could talk about differences in trucking rather than blast the US. If I started calling every other countries way of doing business, dumb, stupid, lazy, cheap people would think I'm an arrogant American a-hole. Besides wasn't there just a thread on how dumb us Americans are for not driving cabovers and that argument was about OAL being shorter?  Now Americans are dumb for not going long enough?

Edited September 19, 2016 by HeavyGunner

[TeamsterGrrrl]

Why is the American market the "odd man out" in almost every vehicle class? Rest Of the World (ROW) has gone for heavier and longer trucks, B train couplings, cabovers, etc.. ROW buys little front wheel drive cars that carry 4-5 people and get 30 MPG or better, we buy huge pickups to do the same job but get half the MPGs. Same with motorcycles... HOG(NYSE) has biggest market share in America, worldwide they're a bit player. We still use obsolete AM HF CB, ROW has gone FM VHF and UHF. Same with measuring systems, "english" dimension stuff is becoming crap because it's oddball and nobody else uses it anymore. And have you ever wondered why full sized pickups, the best selling vehicles in America, aren't even sold in most of the ROW? It's because Europeans and Asians won't buy them! If they need a work truck, they get a van and enjoy lockable storage and better manueverability.

If you live with the blinders on, America looks like the best place in the world. But once you've seen road racing and WRC, racing around an oval with only left turns is kinda boring. And once you've driven a hot hatch like a GTI that is faster than most 60s "supercars" while able to haul as much or more than many SUVs and use half the gas doing it, SUVs and big pickups seem sorta wasted. Sorry if you have to live with the blinders on, but I prefer to enjoy the world's best!

[41chevy]

Agreed, we need the Euro type of government the Euro education, medical and military system to be a world class nation. The American unions could take a lesson from their European brothers also.

Edited September 19, 2016 by 41chevy

[TeamsterGrrrl]

Well, they are beating us in a lot of those areas. Except for the military, they leave that and it's funding to us...

[HeavyGunner]

2 hours ago, TeamsterGrrrl said:

Why is the American market the "odd man out" in almost every vehicle class? Rest Of the World (ROW) has gone for heavier and longer trucks, B train couplings, cabovers, etc.. ROW buys little front wheel drive cars that carry 4-5 people and get 30 MPG or better, we buy huge pickups to do the same job but get half the MPGs. Same with motorcycles... HOG(NYSE) has biggest market share in America, worldwide they're a bit player. We still use obsolete AM HF CB, ROW has gone FM VHF and UHF. Same with measuring systems, "english" dimension stuff is becoming crap because it's oddball and nobody else uses it anymore. And have you ever wondered why full sized pickups, the best selling vehicles in America, aren't even sold in most of the ROW? It's because Europeans and Asians won't buy them! If they need a work truck, they get a van and enjoy lockable storage and better manueverability.

If you live with the blinders on, America looks like the best place in the world. But once you've seen road racing and WRC, racing around an oval with only left turns is kinda boring. And once you've driven a hot hatch like a GTI that is faster than most 60s "supercars" while able to haul as much or more than many SUVs and use half the gas doing it, SUVs and big pickups seem sorta wasted. Sorry if you have to live with the blinders on, but I prefer to enjoy the world's best!

In what world does a compact car do the same job as my 1 ton truck?  Let's see it haul my firewood, pull my horse trailer, haul my equipment around. As usual if everyone doesn't agree with you we're stupid and have blinders on. Hate to tell ya but America IS the best place in the world. Or maybe the millions of immigrants here and trying to get here are wrong. Again I'm sure you can find somewhere else that is so much better than the US. I guess since the US (being a leader and innovator for the last 150 years or so) has to conform to what everyone else thinks we should do so it can be "right". 

[mrsmackpaul]

8 hours ago, HeavyGunner said:

Could see from a mile away this conversation going as the typical US is dumb and stupid. How come Americans are  supposed to be so open to everyone else's ideas and methods but on here there are a few that do nothing but bash how stupid, dumb, cheap, backwards, behind the times we are? I could be rude and say a few things but I won't. Ever consider why we truck the way we do?  Maybe it's because weights and regs are state by state which directly ties in to our free choice in our democracy i.e. Let the states decide for themselves. Ever wonder why US trucking companies are "cheap"?  Likely because we have a ton of companies and entrepreneurs fighting for every load in a cut throat business and don't forget the railroad as well.  I think American trucking companies are far more sophisticated and crafty than they are given credit for. They have to be to stay afloat. Then again people like me couldn't possibly know because I pull an A train not the much more sophisticated, desirable, better B train. I know the "American trucking business" are dumb supporters are few on here but I still think they could talk about differences in trucking rather than blast the US. If I started calling every other countries way of doing business, dumb, stupid, lazy, cheap people would think I'm an arrogant American a-hole. Besides wasn't there just a thread on how dumb us Americans are for not driving cabovers and that argument was about OAL being shorter?  Now Americans are dumb for not going long enough?

Im not knocking the US at all but on some issues it appears from the outside looking in if the congress wants to make a big difference there is some obvious things that maybe needed to be looked at 

And no one has called the US dumb stupid or lazy or even implied it I have just asked some questions ????? 

But the US congress has asked the question so maybe its worth the answer 

I dont think anyone has said the US truck industry isnt smart or efficient but the question any one should ask is how much better could it be if they had better roads and trucks and trailers to do it with

I dont think anyone is saying anyone is dumb 

Maybe the industry isnt ready for a adult conversation after all

Paul 

Edited September 19, 2016 by mrsmackpaul

[kscarbel2]

4 hours ago, 41chevy said:

Agreed, we need the Euro type of government the Euro education, medical and military system to be a world class nation. The American unions could take a lesson from their European brothers also.

C'mon Paul, we're talking about truck design, and trailers..................not any of the other you mention.

[kscarbel2]

8 hours ago, HeavyGunner said:

Could see from a mile away this conversation going as the typical US is dumb and stupid. How come Americans are  supposed to be so open to everyone else's ideas and methods but on here there are a few that do nothing but bash how stupid, dumb, cheap, backwards, behind the times we are? I could be rude and say a few things but I won't. Ever consider why we truck the way we do?  Maybe it's because weights and regs are state by state which directly ties in to our free choice in our democracy i.e. Let the states decide for themselves. Ever wonder why US trucking companies are "cheap"?  Likely because we have a ton of companies and entrepreneurs fighting for every load in a cut throat business and don't forget the railroad as well.  I think American trucking companies are far more sophisticated and crafty than they are given credit for. They have to be to stay afloat. Then again people like me couldn't possibly know because I pull an A train not the much more sophisticated, desirable, better B train. I know the "American trucking business" are dumb supporters are few on here but I still think they could talk about differences in trucking rather than blast the US. If I started calling every other countries way of doing business, dumb, stupid, lazy, cheap people would think I'm an arrogant American a-hole. Besides wasn't there just a thread on how dumb us Americans are for not driving cabovers and that argument was about OAL being shorter?  Now Americans are dumb for not going long enough?

Relax my friend. Nobody said the US is dumb and stupid. We talking about truck design, i.e. tractors and trailers.

The US does have a unique go-it-alone tone, that's undeniable. I myself wish we had one set of emissions standards for the entire world, rather than U.S. standards, and the Euro standards that most of the world uses. We could could it the "Global Emissions Standards".

Limited to small trailers and 80,000lb GCW limits, we aren't operating as efficiently as we could or should.

I will bash the United States EPA for forcing EPA2004 and EPA2007 down our throats before the technology was mature for US market trucks. It costs American truck operators millions of dollars. Those trucks are nothing more than rolling advanced science experiments. The engine compartments were so hot, I watched windshield washer reservoirs melting under the hoods of Mack Visions.

Nobody ever said that Americans are "dumb" for not driving COEs. People expressed their opinion. I myself appreciate the added efficiency, serviceability and visibility of COEs. Mack sold thousands and thousands of F-models, Cruise-Liners and Ultra-Liners for those very reasons. If you want maximum load capacity while keeping overall length in check, the COE has a strong argument.

[41chevy]

4 hours ago, TeamsterGrrrl said:

Rest Of the World (ROW) has gone for heavier and longer trucks, B train couplings, cabovers, etc.. ROW buys little front wheel drive cars that carry 4-5 people and get 30 MPG or better, we buy huge pickups to do the same job but get half the MPGs. Same with motorcycles... HOG(NYSE) has biggest market share in America, worldwide they're a bit player. We still use obsolete AM HF CB, ROW has gone FM VHF and UHF. Same with measuring systems, "english" dimension stuff is becoming crap because it's oddball and nobody else uses it anymore. And have you ever wondered why full sized pickups, the best selling vehicles in America, aren't even sold in most of the ROW? It's because Europeans and Asians won't buy them! If they need a work truck, they get a van and enjoy lockable storage and better manueverability.

If you live with the blinders on, America looks like the best place in the world. But once you've seen road racing and WRC, racing around an oval with only left turns is kinda boring. And once you've driven a hot hatch like a GTI that is faster than most 60s "supercars" while able to haul as much or more than many SUVs and use half the gas doing it, SUVs and big pickups seem sorta wasted

 

33 minutes ago, kscarbel2 said:

C'mon Paul, we're talking about truck design, and trailers..................not any of the other you mention.

Seems all lumped together from little cars to motor sports, and motorcycles, education, government, unions, general intelligence  and health care in Europe seems to give them a better insight in to the global needs and choices than our .

[kscarbel2]

Paul my friend, I'm not lumping together my thoughts on global trucking trends with anything else.

Cars, motorcycles, education, government, unions, general intelligence and health care aren't on my mind.

Although my thoughts are global in scope, I'll be the first to criticize the dysfunctional European Union. You can blame global big business for its creation, their scheme for enhancing profitability in Europe.

 

[TeamsterGrrrl]

Agreed- Our trucks are inefficient. And if you really need a pickup, we make some of the best, once you spec the truck up to 3/4 or 1 ton and take the pickup bed off and substitute a flatbed with toolboxes and removable or fold down sides. Harley has made decent engines like the V-Rod and the new 500/750, but hobbles them with dysfunctional chassis. Harley even built a decent bike once, it was called a Buell, and they killed it off. In vans, it took the Sprinter to show us how it's done, so after a half century of hiding their best in Europe, Ford finally brought the Transit home to America.

[kscarbel2]

1 minute ago, TeamsterGrrrl said:

Agreed- Our trucks are inefficient. And if you really need a pickup, we make some of the best, once you spec the truck up to 3/4 or 1 ton and take the pickup bed off and substitute a flatbed with toolboxes and removable or fold down sides. Harley has made decent engines like the V-Rod and the new 500/750, but hobbles them with dysfunctional chassis. Harley even built a decent bike once, it was called a Buell, and they killed it off. In vans, it took the Sprinter to show us how it's done, so after a half century of hiding their best in Europe, Ford finally brought the Transit home to America.

Back in 2001, I advised senior Ford management to bring the Transit to the US. They resisted, arguing that the Transit wasn't suitable. They said Americans like to tow with their vans, whereas the Transit wasn't engineering for towing because nobody tows with Transits in the global market. Still, I argued the Transit in every other way was 20 years ahead of the Econoline in overall form and function. They agreed, but decided to postpone a US launch.

In Europe, the Transit is available in rear-wheel drive, front-wheel drive or all-wheel drive. Like all global market light vehicles, the US gets the decontented version, because we demand a low price.

[BillyT]

There is no question there are parts of the world where heavier weights and longer,higher,and more trailers per power unit are utilized in some cases with great efficiency. There are three factors that must be considered that so far nobody has mentioned. The first is almost universally ignored by the trucking industry. PARKING!! As far as the otr driver is concerned this is a major problem!In many parts of America,the east coast,Florida,and most metro areas to name a few, You can't buy a place to park past mid afternoon!As witness the trucks illegally parked past the ramps on most rest areas and everywhere else! Most t.s. in congested areas have a parking limit of a few hrs if you don't buy fuel! The price of real estate and local citizen opposition limit where truck stops and truck terminals can be built.The second issue is our crumbling infrastructure that can barely handle the weight limits that exist today! Take a ride thru Michigan to see how well the highways handle gross weights over 100k! Traffic is another problem in many metro areas. The curtainside trailer is admittedly underutilized. price theft potential  and additional maintenance could be reasons.

[BC Mack]

17 minutes ago, BillyT said:

There is no question there are parts of the world where heavier weights and longer,higher,and more trailers per power unit are utilized in some cases with great efficiency.There are three factors that must be considered that so far nobody has mentioned.The first is almost universally ignored by the trucking industry.PARKING!! As far as the otr driver is concerned this is a major problem!In many parts of America,the east coast,Florida,and most metro areas to name a few,You can't buy a place to park past mid afternoon!As witness the trucks illegally parked past the ramps on most rest areas and everywhere else! Most t.s. in congested areas have a parking limit of a few hrs if you don't buy fuel! The price of real estate and local citizen opposition limit where truck stops and truck terminals can be built.The second issue is our crumbling infrastructure that can barely handle the weight limits that exist today! Take a ride thru Michigan to see how well the highways handle gross weights over 100k! Traffic is another problem in many metro areas.The curtainside trailer is admittedly underutilized.price theft potential  and additional maintenance could be reasons.

I think you pretty well nailed it....

it's not the trucking industry's fault the infrastructure isn't there... the industry is not buying the wrong equipment just what is being sold.... the trucks can't excel in efficiency if the bridges are not strong enough, the roads are too narrow, suck fuel, egr's, nimby's, parking, duty hours et al.... if the gov has not got a national policy for all states which is well funded then you aren't going to get efficient... if you took all the 'foreign aid' dollars back you would have a good head start at the funding part, just got to find a leadership that isn't biased or bent....

so what do you truckers do?.. you go 'cheap', short term plan your finances as you don't know if you are in business next year outbid by a guy who just bought a bankrupt local truck company for peanuts and is now underbidding you in a race to the bottom..!!! the customer nearly always chooses the lowest bid for moving a load.

the answer?....

it's not just the wrong equipment... it's the whole package.

BC Mack

 

[grayhair]

1 hour ago, BC Mack said:

The second issue is our crumbling infrastructure that can barely handle the weight limits that exist today! Take a ride thru Michigan to see how well the highways handle gross weights over 100k!

Right now in the U.S. there are about 82,000 substandard bridges.  Consider the collapse of the I35 bridge in Minneapolis a few years ago.  Fact is heavily-loaded trucks contributed to the failure of the I35 bridge.  Or the I5 bridge failure north of Seattle.  Sure there were design issues and maintenance issues, but that is the case for hundreds if not thousands of U.S. bridges.  I've driven across both of those bridges many times so I consider myself lucky I wasn't on either of them when they failed.  So then, if you are alive and reading this, then you are lucky too.  You might take a poll of the people of Minneapolis and see how they feel about heavier trucks.  Tell them it will be OK 'cause they will have lots of axles...  

So why is so much U.S. infrastructure in bad condition?  It's about the money.  Our goodhearted government has decided to spend our taxpayer monies on other "priorities."  Like tax returns and Social Security payments made to indigents and foreigners including non-citizens who didn't pay a dime into the system.  And medical benefits to some 20 million illegal aliens, and schools that must accommodate many foreign language speakers, and foreign aid monies paid to countries that hate us.  Outside of the trucking industry, some 300 million U.S citizens don't give a fiddler's fiduciary about heavier trucks and side loading, etc.  It is unclear to me how heavier or longer trucks will benefit the average citizen.  Any cost savings will disappear long before it reaches the consumer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-35W_Mississippi_River_bridge

Edited September 20, 2016 by grayhair

[kscarbel2]

President Eisenhower had "vision" when he imagined and built America's interstate system. At its inception, it was a benchmark for the world.

However, the country has done a deplorable job since then maintaining and expanding it. The government allowed a massive asset to wither away. And now, it's poor condition arguably prevents us from using more efficient truck solutions.

We pour away billions and billions overseas, and then hear there's inadequate funding to take care of the home front.