Posted on Jun 05, 2008 - 4:27pm by Wayne Weisser in Politics
Wonder who was behind this “temporary” legislation? It’s in the Senate, so it’s not law yet.
Senate bill proposes temporary weight increase
A bill in the U.S. Senate would temporarily increase weight limits on federal highways from 80,000 pounds to 100,000 pounds for a trial period of two years when diesel prices are above $3.50 per gallon.The Commercial Truck Fuel Savings Demonstration Act of 2008, S. 3059, was introduced May 28 by Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Olympia Snowe. R-Maine. The bill, which has been referred to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, also would require the Government Accountability Office to complete a report about safety and other concerns at the completion of the pilot program.
In the rest of the article, they use Maine as an example of how trucks weighing more than 80,000 lbs must exit the turnpike and travel smaller roads. Which doesn’t make sense, but both Senators that introduced this bill are from Maine, maybe they should fix Maine. I’m sure they’re only using that as an example, but the people that don’t know any better are going to assume the rest of the country is like that and think this is a good idea.
And notice how they name it the “Fuel Savings” Act? The only fuel it’s going to save is for the shippers. Think you’re going to get a better rate hauling 100,000 lbs of beer out of Colorado? Or a 100,000 lbs of produce out of California? I may be wrong and I hope I am, but I really don’t think the rate is going to be much better to cover the trucks lower mpg. That’s what doesn’t make sense!
Who's to blame for the high cost of fuel?
Why The Immigration Bill Failed
RSS feed for comments on this post | Trackback URI
What a great example of people who don’t know anything about trucking making legislation for our industry. Don’t get me wrong, their not stupid, they do know everything about squeezing every penny out of truckers for the benefit of trucking customers.
The only truckers benefiting would be those that get paid by weight, but that is a very small percentage.
We all know the problems that heavier weights present. Vehicle wear, lower fuel mileage, etc. This legislation is going to shut down more small trucking businesses. The damage will be the creeping type that slowly kills with maintenance costs.
Isn’t the government having trouble maintaining the roads under the current weight restrictions? Is this a way to get trucks to use more fuel and produce more tax revenue? At the same time, small companies that cannot absorb the higher cost of operating this way make way for the ATA companies that can.
I guess I’ll be a little contrarian here.
As one who has been pulling OVER a hundred thousand pounds gross weight for years I don’t really see the problem.
If it were up to me I’d eliminate the gross weight restriction and rely solely on axle weight. That is, if a trucker could axle it he could haul it. It’d be nice if the axle weights were standardized too. How about 20,000 lbs an axle just like we do with spread axles?
As another one who has been pulling H/H for many years, the LAST thing I want to see is a weight increase on these company trucks and others out there. Just the thought of a standard equipped swift, sni, or jb (to name a few) rolling down Monteagle, Cabbage, or Fancy Gap, (among others) is enough to give me the Heebie Jeebies!! Even at 65,000-80,000lbs they are already smoking their brakes as it is, add another 20-35,000lbs to the mix? Not good! This doesnt even factor in that to hit 100k, they are now at 20,000lbs per axle on a 5ax rig which is most likely spec’d with a 14k steer/34-36k drive setup, OR that without changing to a heavy steer tire, they are way overloading the steers! Add in that the shippers will still want to pay “Truckload” rates on what they are shipping and its a lose/lose situation all the way around…. improperly equipped trucks, driven by drivers unfamiliar with how the additional 20,000lbs of weight will affect their braking, handling, etc, with the corresponding decrease in fuel mileage, while the rates remain the same!
Perhaps I misunderstood.
I thought that JUST the gross weight rule would be changed. Axle weights would remain the same. That being the case then there would be no way that a five axle rig could gross one hundred. I had no idea that all the other rules were going to be ignored.
Under the new rule It would take six axles to gross one hundred thousand as I understand it. (steer = 12) +( drives and trailer @ 5 x 17 = 85) Gross = 97. Even so it would require fifteen on the steer. (OR change the legal weight per axle.) Other wise a seven axle rig would be required.
I still don’t see why not. If a person or company wants to buy the appropriate equipment. I certainly don’t want to see overloaded five axle rigs. That NEVER happens now, does it? If a person buys equipment that could handle the extra weight then what’s the problem?
It would be pretty easy to enforce. Every tractor has a Gross Vehicle Weight sticker. Every tractor is registered at a certain weight. If someone exceeds either then there’s a violation.
As for SWIFT. (Sure Wish I’d Finished Training)? Well I wished that they had too. You might note when you head out west next time. Swift runs some rigs with MORE than five axles.
(b) Combination Vehicles in Excess of 80,000 Pounds- A vehicle described in this subsection is a vehicle having a weight in excess of 80,000 pounds that–
(1) consists of a 3-axle tractor unit hauling a single trailer or semitrailer…..
Note that they are not calling for an increase in axles on the power unit, and unless it is required (which is not stated in the proposed bill) to increase the axles, that there are many out there that will not invest in buying equipment with the extra axles and specs to haul the added weight. Even with what we do for a living, with the exception of a few limited cases and states all of our permits state “undivisible load” or some variant of those words. When we load to 100,000lbs or more, we are particular about how the load is placed on the trailer, secured, etc. A process that takes time and experience to learn. The swifts, westerns, and others out west that are running 6 and 7ax setups are not newbies usually ether. They go thru a training schedule to learn the different characteristics of a mulit-ax rig. Make it fleetwide/nationwide and youre going to end up with inexperienced drivers unable to handle the added weights.
Heres another thought too, what happens when you now have (fill in the blank) rocking in and loading up their 5ax lowboy with 6ax freight, think our HH rates are going to stay the same or improve? Not likely… how about when we quote something heavy and get the response “well, such&such pulls that weight for us in vans for X less per mile, so why cant you?”
As for SWIFT (stupid, wannabe, idiotic, flippin, trainee) dont get me started there, especially after taking 2weeks off this spring to repair about $15k worth of damage to the old girl when one decided to remove her hood out in texas X-(
I agree with what you said.
However. I still think that “if you got the axles, and you have the tractor, you can pull the load”, is an OK solution.
By that I mean that the power unit should be rated at, or above gross weight in question, AND there should be a sufficient number of axles to “axle out” the gross weight in question. I’m NOT in favor of overloading equipment.
That being the case then to haul a hundred you would need six (with a big front end) or seven axles.
That being the case it would actually ADD to safety. The reason I say this is that the addittional six and seven axle rigs wouldn’t be loaded heavy ALL the time and when theyre light they can stop better than other wise. Those extra axles have extra brakes.
WhenEVER I’m over legal axle weight,…..17 per axle…I ALWAYS flip my trailer axle and lower my tractor lift axle. Sure….I don’t need to because permitted loads are allowed (generally) 20 per axle or 40 per tandem. I don’t care. I put the wheels on the ground because it makes it easier on my rig and the extra brakes make it easier to stop.
Too bad about the Swift. I’ve seen that exact same thing happen all too many times. Who would think that pulling out of a parking space would be all that hard?
I had a buddy heading north on I25 over Raton Pass in New Mexico. He was empty and heading back to get another oversize. He was pulling a low profile stretch step deck. A swift driver put HIS rig on TOP of my buddies trailer…..at 65 miles per hour. Suddenly my buddy was hauling a swift truck. Needless to say it tore “stuff” up and put my buddie in the hospital for a while.
I wonder what ever happened to training? (sarcasm on) You’d think Swift would know not to load at highway speeds. (sarcasm off) and who gave him permission to do so anyway?
In conclusion. I haven’t read the bill. I take your word for what it said. What you said it said is BAD. Hopefully if additionally weight is authorized little details like equipment capability will be considered.
BUT…is it safety or is it revenue?
The differrence between you hauling 100k and the rest of us is you get paid more to haul the extra weight and I’m sure you’re truck is spec’d for it. Apples and oranges.
Changing the axle weights would be a good idea, would eliminate that hassle.
Newer trucks are heavier and with APU’s and custom sleepers, the driver needs a little more weight for the extra stuff and shippers want more weight for the same price. I don’t see this getting far because of the “safety” groups that will say the extra weight is unsafe and it probably would be for all the inexperienced folks we have out here.
Well yeah.
Why would anyone want to haul more weight if they don’t get paid for it? If nothing else it’s the fuel. Heavy weight dramatically DECREASES fuel economy. It’s the single largest factor. When I’m light I can sometimes almost get 6 mpg. (usually get less) When I’m heavy (130,00) I’m tickled to get four. Usually get way less.
And yeah. It takes a stouter truck. My tractor’s empty weight is 25,000 lbs. I have a buddy who’s tractor’s empty weight is 32. (serious truck…it’s tagged at GVW of over 200K)
And yeah. It helps to know what you’re doing. (go to any truckstop and observe then tell me everyone knows what they’re doing)
I agree with everything you said.
Even so I stick by what I said. Over all it’s more efficient for one truck to haul heavy than for two trucks (going to the same place) to haul light.