|
|
Posted Fri, Dec 10 2010 12:19 PM CST
Posted from www.bulkloadsnow.com 
|
||
|
FORUM QUESTIONS BULKLOADSNOW.COM SPRINGFIELD, MO Posts: 92 |
The bill authorizes states to allow the operation of trucks on the Interstate Highway System with a gross weight of 97,000 pounds. Current law limits the weight of five-axle trucks traveling on the interstate system to 80,000 pounds. The legislation requires that trucks operating above 80,000 pounds must add a sixth axle to compensate for the extra weight. |
REPLY REPLY WITH QUOTE |
| Posted Fri, Dec 10 2010 12:33 PM CST
Posted from www.bulkloadsnow.com
|
||
|
GEORGE BEYER BEYER TRUCKING HULL, IA Posts: 4 |
FOR IT! | REPLY REPLY WITH QUOTE |
| Posted Fri, Dec 10 2010 12:58 PM CST
Posted from www.bulkloadsnow.com
|
||
|
JEFF PEARSON C & R TRUCKING INC PAYSON, UT 801-465-4548 Posts: 460 |
First off: Look at the some of the idiots that are driving trucks..They can't handle 80,000 lbs, let alone 97,000 lbs. Second: The rates will be adjusted to the extra weight that can be hauled so you will ge the same pay per load..You watch..as with deregulation the savings will be passed on to the public...Now who is the public?? Shippers and some sleassy broker..Third: It will cost you more to operate your truck as in more fuel and more wear and tear on the truck and tires...They say ohhhh no it will not be so? Well I have hauled trains in Nevada and your costs go way up..Even for 97,000lbs...And do you really think that you will be getting any more money??Ha..HA...HA...Next it will be longer..for more volume...Why was it that you did make money at 72,000 lbs and 40 ft. trailers ? |
REPLY REPLY WITH QUOTE |
| Posted Fri, Dec 10 2010 01:01 PM CST
Posted from www.bulkloadsnow.com
|
||
|
SETH PITMAN S PITMAN TRANSPORT LLC DUNKIRK, IN 765-369-8910 Posts: 23 |
I'm for it, but does it give the state the choice to do this? because If Ohio and Illinois do it and Indiana does not for example It gains us nothing, but i'm for it absolutley, I'd be updating to a 3-axle ASAP and | REPLY REPLY WITH QUOTE |
| Posted Fri, Dec 10 2010 02:02 PM CST
Posted from www.bulkloadsnow.com
|
||
|
JEFF PEARSON C & R TRUCKING INC PAYSON, UT 801-465-4548 Posts: 460 |
This law will not work unless all of the states have to recognize it...The biggest thing are the bridge laws and the condition of the bridges...For a normal trucker..you don't get into this..I hauled heavy and there are many substandard bridges..For example in OHio there are 4 bridges that you stop all traffic and slow to 25..In mayland on 70 there is a bridge that you shut all traffic..stop and creep across..in Teas on 5 there is abridge you can't even cross..or one that many of you are familliar with..hwy80 going across the Missouri river..you have to split the lanes...It is more that just adding an axle to your truck..Most of the bridges that have not beemn rebuilt were ratedfor 32,000lbs per tandum and 18,000 per singles and 73,000 gross..that is one reason why the highway system is so bad...On the roadway it is the pad contact..when you go down the road each pad pumps up and down..This is not visible to the eye..When you hit the pad with your steer axle it goes down and releaseswhen the steers clear the pad then the drives it repeats and so on...This is why you see the 9axles and bigger have wierd looking axle figuations..Then you have frost laws...HUH??? when you are heavy in the spring you can only go on certain roads or with a lesser weight..as the soil and the base is defrosting..So it is not just being able to haul heavier... |
REPLY REPLY WITH QUOTE |
| Posted Fri, Dec 10 2010 04:36 PM CST
Posted from www.bulkloadsnow.com
|
||
|
DAN BEAGLE AMERICAN FARMLAND SUPPLY LLC CASSVILLE, MO 417-846-1818 Posts: 47 |
evidently most of us truckers are good solid business people or we would already b broke.we best take a step back and research this piece of gov"t garbage.when was the last time our uncle did anything to help us?they are gonna put the big britches on us.our costs will soar(if u have ever hauled heavy loads on a regular basis u will know)equipt additions will cost more not to forget fet taxes on additional equipt added to an existing piece,resale will sour as future buyers will look at said equipt and know it was in sever duty-------and all this so we can haul an additional few tons,that we will end up hauling at a lesser amount per ton.look at the rocky mountain trains,we as midwest truckers cant compete on a per ton basis with them.my last thought IF IT WILL NOT PENCIL AT 80000,putting MORE TONS ON WILL NOT ALL FALL TO THE BOTTOM LINE and that is where we live on the bottom line,gross dollars are not ours just NET DOLLARS are ours.think profit gentlmen.have a safe weekend danny mackey | REPLY REPLY WITH QUOTE |
| Posted Fri, Dec 10 2010 07:11 PM CST
Posted from www.bulkloadsnow.com
|
||
|
MIKE WILSON TRIPLE M TRANSPORTATION LLC BOWLING GREE, MO 573-656-3463 Posts: 36 |
AGAINST IT ! The rates would only cheapen more to compensate for the increased tonnage, and we will be left with higher maintainance licsense and fuel costs because of the increased weight. Think hard before you say your for this because it is only to try and cheapen the costs to consumers and companys on the products shipped. |
REPLY REPLY WITH QUOTE |
| Posted Fri, Dec 10 2010 08:10 PM CST
Posted from www.bulkloadsnow.com
|
||
|
CHARLES GIPPLE CHARLES R GIPPLE WESTON, CO 719-213-8420 Posts: 7 |
Totally against . Idaho and Wyoming already do it and have very cheap freight rates up there. | REPLY REPLY WITH QUOTE |
| Posted Sat, Dec 11 2010 09:31 AM CST
Posted from www.bulkloadsnow.com
|
||
|
SEAN N SMN MURRAY, KY 970-420-7092 Posts: 42 |
All I need to know is that the ATA is pushing this. So, I am surely against it! |
REPLY REPLY WITH QUOTE |
| Posted Sat, Dec 11 2010 01:02 PM CST
Posted from www.bulkloadsnow.com
|
||
|
BRUCE JANZEN JANZEN TRUCKING INC ELBING, KS 316-799-2153 Posts: 12 |
This bill is nothing more than a railroad bill to allow the heavier containers that travel the rails to be moved from railroad terminals to the customers LEGALLY. Look at the containers travelling the rails today Check out the gross weights allowed on the containers. Add about 30,000 #s for the truck and the chassis to haul the 53 foot box. It adds up to a number of 97,000#, just like the new law allows. It will make the cost of shipping goods in containers less per unit since the shippers will be able to fill the box instead of limiting them to an 80,000# gross. The rails don't care about the extra weight since it's not a big concern of theirs anyway and it will take away from the efficiency of long haul trucking. | REPLY REPLY WITH QUOTE |
| Posted Sat, Dec 11 2010 03:28 PM CST
Posted from www.bulkloadsnow.com
|
||
|
BRUCE JANZEN JANZEN TRUCKING INC ELBING, KS 316-799-2153 Posts: 12 |
Add to this that Mexico is developing a deep water port off their west coast west of Mexico City and you can see why the push is on for a cross border trucking program with Mexican trucks coming into the USA. This way the high shipping costs of west coast ports in the US will be diverted to Mexican ports. This is all a way for the international shipping interests to circumvent the regulations of our ports and to reduce transit costs for imported and exported goods. Also the Panama Canal will be wider in a couple of years and this will allow more ocean containers to come via our eastern ports also having the effect of bypassing our west coast ports and the cross country rails. | REPLY REPLY WITH QUOTE |
| Posted Mon, Dec 13 2010 10:49 AM CST
Posted from www.bulkloadsnow.com
|
||
|
RICHARD SCHULTZ RICHARD L SCHULTZ LINCOLN, KS 785-531-2753 Posts: 24 |
If the ATA is pushing this BACK AWAY FROM THE VEHICLE SIR WITH YOUR HANDS RAISED HIGH! My best megaphone impersonation in an letter.The man behind that curtian is not OUR freind. He may be from KANSAS , but the Wizard of Oz he ain't. Bill Graves a former Governer of KS about broke our state. He broke his fathers trucking company, Graves Truck Line, Salina, KS. He is for EOBR's, loves this new CSA 2010, and UCR BS. Yes a Republican but acts more like a spend and tax Liberal. BE AFRAID VERY AFRAID!!!! My vote NO! |
REPLY REPLY WITH QUOTE |
| Posted Tue, Dec 14 2010 07:25 AM CST
Posted from www.bulkloadsnow.com
|
||
|
CHARLES DAUGHERTY JIGSAW LOGISTICS GROUP, LLC DAWSONVILLE, GA 678-648-6757 Posts: 37 |
Give this man a Cigar! You saw the forest for the trees. This really is all about the R/R if you ask me. A lot of the legislation out there is slanted one direction, that is to weed out a lot of the smaller carrier companies and move the freight to the rail lines. They call that going green. I call it outright stupid. Our highways and bridges can't handle the 80k loads now, just adding more weight will force a quicker transition to the rail. I have over 20 years in the engineering world and can assure you that the roads and bridges are in very bad shape. Heavy loads are hard on equipment, don't forget the added cost of hauling overweight regardless of the number of wheels on the ground. |
REPLY REPLY WITH QUOTE |
| Posted Tue, Dec 14 2010 08:21 PM CST
Posted from www.bulkloadsnow.com
|
||
|
DAN HOLLERS UPRREMP NORTH LOOP, AL Posts: 6 |
all this bill is a bunch of people that know NOTHEN! i work on the union pacific RR. I tell you what the hi way system sucks yes I work 8 days on and 7 days off when Im off I drive truck. so I tell you from both sides the rail is Horrible it way worse then the hiway system!!! is the RR behind this maybe but unfortanitlly if they are it will pass no matter what the have more money then power then the goverment gaurenteed ive been a formen for 10 yrs and its crazy how dam rich they are and how much power they have no its DAM scary! the rail is so under maintainced I will not even ride on the rail Period! and i have dam good hired men that have been laid off for the whole year. pathetic. but if this passes mark my word it wont be that long before we are all in trouble. | REPLY REPLY WITH QUOTE |
| Posted Wed, Dec 15 2010 07:11 AM CST
Posted from www.bulkloadsnow.com
|
||
|
ALLEN LAWRENCE WHITEMON GLOBAL TRADINGS, LLC EDENTON, NC 703-505-6584 Posts: 2 |
I do agree about some broker have taken almost all the profit. Some are excellent some are greedy. I was a produce hauler myself and I just joined this broker team dealing w/ bulk freight. To tell you the truth the prices are way off from where they should be. Freight is freight regardless of what it is. We didn't care about 97,000 lbs hauling produce, GIVE ME 110,000 LBS and I would run right by the scales. The differents is the pay! So you add an extra axle how much does that weigh? And 8 more tons of bulk freight at $25/ton is only $212.50, 8 more tons of produce is at least $1000.00. DO THE MATH!! I say raise the weigh to 90,000 lbs and let it be. The equipment will hold it. I I have a truck running to and I load it heavy all time. My driver calls me about being heavy and I tell him you know what to do, RIDE!! |
REPLY REPLY WITH QUOTE |
| Posted Wed, Dec 15 2010 07:25 PM CST
Posted from www.bulkloadsnow.com
|
||
|
SCOTT DILLON DILLON CONTRACTING INC TURKEY CREEK, KY 606-625-2519 Posts: 3 |
this is correct as a 25 year veteran of trucking, the cheap rates did happen in ky. in hauling coal. coal trucks were able to haul 120,000.lbs but were over looked by former gov paul payyon who told the ky d.o.t. to back off in the eastern half of the state. when this happened in the mid 90's the rates went down,and the weights went up to over 180,000 lbs and in a lot of places over 200,000 lbs going into AEP plant at lousia,ky. "I" know I hauled it. in 2005 I went to work for norfolk southern railroad in T/E as a conductor and have seen this first hand the federal gov't is backing the railroads in this bill. think about it 2 - 4500 hp locomotives and 2-miles of containers double stacked. what can that do for your wallet ? all this is being hidden behined EPA reg's so you think you are helping clean the air when in fact you are cleaning you'r own bank account. |
REPLY REPLY WITH QUOTE |
| Posted Wed, Dec 15 2010 08:17 PM CST
Posted from www.bulkloadsnow.com
|
||
|
RICHARD A. MOEN THREE STATE TRUCKING INC. PEEVER, SD 605-880-2006 Posts: 20 |
In order to gross 97,000# don't you have to have 7 total axles? I used to have a pusher on my old truck and I could only bridge 88,000#. If you guys think you make more money hauling more weight I would seriously reconsider. I used to haul up to 105,000# on 8 axles, sure I may have grossed more money, but I also spent more on fuel and maintenance. That much weight is a lot harder to get moving. I am now back to grossing 80,000# and I actually am making about the same money, after expenses, than I was before. When I started rates were based on 26 ton, if you could haul more that was a bonus, then pretty soon everyone wanted rates based on 30 ton so you had to haul that to make money. I bought a lighter truck and can haul a payload of 54,000# and go down pretty much any road I want to without a bunch of extra permits. | REPLY REPLY WITH QUOTE |