According to a Logistics Management article; they most certainly could be. The first paragraph of the article states:
Shippers could be enjoying as much as $50 billion in savings through greater productivity from their motor carriers if longer and heavier trucks are allowed when Congress crafts the next federal-aid highway bill in 2009.
Economics are undoubtedly the primary push behind the effort to allow longer and heavier trucks to negotiate America’s highways but there are some environmental issues involved, as well. As ATA President and CEO Bill Graves recently said: “A great deal of the debate on Capitol Hill with the whole global warming thing has brought focus on the kind of fuel savings you get with more productive vehicles….”
The idea apparently being bandied about is to increase the gross weight limit on six (not five) axle trucks in the U.S. to 97000 lbs. If you’re wondering how the powers that be arrived at that number it should be noted that, as per the article, six-axle trucks in Canada and, according to Fleetowner Magazine, five-axle trucks in Mexico are currently allowed to gross 97000 lbs. The article doesn’t ever discuss the “Longer” part, and I haven’t been able to dig up any news articles regarding this aspect of the issue so, as to the new trailer lengths being considered, your guess is as good (or better) than mine.
So I’m thinking…for longer and heavier vehicles to be more productive, in economic terms, truckers will have to haul more freight for about the same amount of money. Doesn’t really sound like a great idea to me. What do you think?
Pages: [2] 1 » Show All
lets see the new 48ft trailer will only be used to run lite loads from shipper to receiver with no incity use;the new 53′ trailer will only be use to haul from terminal to terminal with no incity use do you think we will hear this new 67′ trailer will only be used out side cities an incase you haven’t been around long enough to have heard about it the 67′ trailer was first shown in 1984 if I remember but that was for use with the cab under trailer tractor haven’t seen anything on that set up for a while [I mite be nuts but not so far gone as to wish the cab under on anybody you can not even see over a pick up truck.]I also don’t believe the pay will go up I’m triing to remember who was talking about saving 20% on each 5 feet of new trail space a shipper could get at was at a meeting of the cleveland club in about 1986.so if they get the 67′ 140,000lbs trailers will the drivers get the pay
[...] efficient than it is, currently. One method of increasing efficiency is to allow for the use of longer trailers hauling, possibly, heavier loads. Another method is to increase the use of rail [...]
Colin, your point regarding highway quality is right on the money. The cost savings to shippers will be more than offset by the tax dollars required to build and maintain highways and bridges. As far as parking goes, I just can’t imagine the problems that’ll be created when all the newly minted drivers try to back trailers even longer than 53′ into parking spaces at Pilots and Flying J’s. Not to mention the number of drive-shafts broken while trying to slide tandems in an effort to shorten up for parking purposes. I understand the shippers dilemma here but I think that the current weight and length limits are sufficient. I know that the length limit, especially, is being sought by shippers whose freight always cubes out before it grosses out but those are the very shippers who primarily patronize carriers that rely heavily on drivers with limited experience. I foresee many, many problems if these regulations are adopted.
Part of it is you won’t need so many new drivers. Demand for drivers would decrease since fewer drivers could carry the same amount of freight. This would mean less of the transient driver workforce that drives down wages. You would have less churn in drivers as well. The professional drivers could handle the volume of freight without needing to get the seasonal or transient drivers on the road. Keep in mind that maximum speeds of 65 or 62 for trucks would go along with the change to increased weight as well. Tamper proof max speeds would be mandated by the govt like clean-idle laws in California require 5 min shut-down on new trucks in ‘08.
I am Canadian and we have been pulling tri axle trailers for years. There is not much fuel economy difference although there is some. Unfortunately I have a job that entails pulling a super “b” with a total of 8 axles. We can actually back them up if necessary. The main problem is that the roads take such a beating that we are pounding out the suspension of the truck because of the roads. You have such nice roads down there and ours are being pounded out continously. The shippers love it as they get more for their buck. The government in some provinces even went as far as to increase the weights up to 140,000 lbs. There is parking for us but where you could at one time park 5 trucks you can now park three. Fight it as much as you can but you can count on the government winning the arguement.
You bring up a good point, Michael. Even if the Federal Government should, in their infinite? wisdom?, decide to raise weight limits and allow longer trailers there’s absolutely no guarantee that the states will incorporate those allowances in their own regulations. I started my trucking career during a similar time of transition. While the Federal GVW limit was 80,000 lbs, there were many states that maintained a 72,000 GVW (73280 with tolerances). There were also two or three different length limits with a few states limiting trucks (Virginia comes to mind) to 55′ overall. If the Feds opt to side with shippers trying to get more bang for their buck it’ll be interesting to see just how many states go along.
In talking to my State Legislators here in Georgia, they’re not inclined to give the green light for
longer heavier trucks. As one of them said “The Minneapolis bridge collapse opened a lot of peoples eyes to the weight issue.” I’m of the thought that the infrastructure of this country wouldn’t support heavier/longer rigs, at least not right now.
Just a question. Where are we going to park these longer heavier trucks?
Can you say “Road Train”?
Yep, I hear you guys. Everitt, you’re talking about specialized hauling that won’t be affected by the new rules being contemplated. You’ll still get paid more ’cause you’re hauling both longer and heavier than is being discussed and, having hauled utility poles up to 110′ in length and arched beams up to 20′ wide, I know full well the parking issues, as well as the other restrictions, involved in hauling over-dimensional freight. And, you’re right, its not for everybody. We’re talking here, though, about longer three-axle trailers hauling heavier loads within the mainstream (that’s everybody) industry and that’s where Billliam’s point comes in.
Think about all the truck stop parking stalls in which you can get a 48 to 53 foot trailer scrunched in. I sat at the Flying J in Denver a couple of years ago and, in one weekend, saw four different tractors get backed into - and that was just in my row. As long as even new facilities are being built with barely enough room to back a trailer into the dock there are going to be increasing problems.
The big push behind this effort is coming from the shippers, who want to pay less to haul more, and the bigger carriers, like Schneider and Con-way, who would have no problem purchasing three-axle trailers…pushing the little guys out of the market.
I run “longer, heavier” all the time.
In my totally biased opinion. It ain’t for everyone….or even most.
I’m subject to rules the general trucking industry could NOT tolerate. Like “daylite only”, and “city curfew”, and “no holiday”…someplaces no weekends. Imagine if everyone were to have to follow those rules?
Parking? HA! It is to laugh. I plan my trip with parking in mind. Many is the time that I shut down two, three or even four hours early cause on down the road there is NO PLACE TO PARK…a long, heavy (and wide and tall) load.
Imagine that in the general industry.
And Pay? Yup. I get paid better. I wouldn’t do it otherwise.
Long and heavy could work, IS working, under certain, very controlled circumstances. It requires addittional infrastructure. TurnPike Doubles for example and Triples. I could see Road Trains even.
TurnPike Doubles (double 53’s) have special “hook/unhook yards”..as do Triples I think. They’re doubles ONLY on the open road..the rest of the time theyre singles. Heck…I don’t even think they go into truckstops to fuel. How could they? RoadTrains would just be another step in that direction.