May The Best Mode Win
in [Drive]
|
From: Dave C. on 17 Oct 2009 08:50 > > I am simply pointing out that the vast majority of the goods that need > moving long distance don't need to be moved by trucks just because > someone out in the middle of nowhere has a load every now and then > that has to go to some place else out in the middle of some other > nowhere. There are very few loads moving anywhere in the U.S. by any mode of transport where both the shipper and consignee are near a railhead. > > And you didn't address the problem of roads suitible for heavy trucks > out in the middle of nowhere. > Not taking sides here, but I haven't actually seen a road not suitable for a heavy truck in the last forty years of driving. Some roads are posted to prohibit truck traffic, but that's just a bullshit political NIMBY move that has nothing to do with the road's suitability for heavy trucks. Now, there are some bridges that can't (supposedly) carry the weight of heavy trucks, and are posted with weight limits. But I suspect that many of these weight restricted bridges came to BE weight restricted bridges due to NIMBYism. I personally passed over a 5,000 pound weight restricted bridge in a vehicle that weighed over 78,000 pounds. Before someone gets smart, I wasn't driving, and I couldn't convince the driver (who was my boss) not to do it. There were two routes into the area. The long way was on surface streets, mostly undeveloped and commercial zoned. The short way was through residential streets and the last block or so included the bridge. That's why I think it was NIMBYism, to keep the trucks out of the residential area. The bridge is fine, BTW. It definitely holds up to 78,000 pounds just FINE. There are many roads that are INCONVENIENT to drive on with a heavy truck. Either for the truck driver, or for others. But in general...in the absence of some kind of bullshit NIMBYism law to prohibit it, a heavy truck can go just about anywhere that a car can go...with a competent driver behind the wheel. On or off road. I used to pull flatbed, and often had to go mud-bogging through new construction sites where the roads hadn't been built yet. With a heavy loaded 18-wheeler. (!) -Dave
From: rshersh on 17 Oct 2009 21:02 The short > way was through residential streets and the last block or so included > the bridge. That's why I think it was NIMBYism, to keep the trucks > out of the residential area. The bridge is fine, BTW. It definitely > holds up to 78,000 pounds just FINE. > and you and your company financed a thorough engineering study of the bridge after you got thru with it or do we just have your not so experienced word that "it was just fine" imho it was unfortunate that law enforcement was not able to see and record your violation and fined the hell out of you in addition, confiscated your truck that would be a well deserved penalty or do you always believe you are above the law???? > There are many roads that are INCONVENIENT to drive on with a heavy > truck. Either for the truck driver, or for others. But in > general...in the absence of some kind of bullshit NIMBYism law to > prohibit it, a heavy truck can go just about anywhere that a car can > go...with a competent driver behind the wheel. On or off road. I used > to pull flatbed, and often had to go mud-bogging through new > construction sites where the roads hadn't been built yet. With a heavy > loaded 18-wheeler. (!) -Dave so you are the greatest truck driver in history, bully for you so what exactly is your opinion on "bullshit nimbyism"? if residential property owners want to keep idiot trucks off their streets, I say more power to them
From: Brent on 17 Oct 2009 21:26 On 2009-10-17, Dave C. <noway(a)nohow.never> wrote: > >> >> I am simply pointing out that the vast majority of the goods that need >> moving long distance don't need to be moved by trucks just because >> someone out in the middle of nowhere has a load every now and then >> that has to go to some place else out in the middle of some other >> nowhere. > There are very few loads moving anywhere in the U.S. by any mode of > transport where both the shipper and consignee are near a railhead. I think 'near' needs to be defined. >> And you didn't address the problem of roads suitible for heavy trucks >> out in the middle of nowhere. > Not taking sides here, but I haven't actually seen a road not suitable > for a heavy truck in the last forty years of driving. Some roads are > posted to prohibit truck traffic, but that's just a bullshit political > NIMBY move that has nothing to do with the road's suitability for heavy > trucks. LOL. I've seen major routes (as in US highways and local arterial roads) where the pavement has been destroyed by heavy truck traffic. The roads in bufu aren't even going to be half as well built and certainly where someone is far far away from anything. And all I have to do to see a road unsuitable for a heavy truck traffic is look out the window. > Now, there are some bridges that can't (supposedly) carry the weight of > heavy trucks, and are posted with weight limits. But I suspect that > many of these weight restricted bridges came to BE weight restricted > bridges due to NIMBYism. It's not that the bridges are falling apart... nahh.. can't be that, just NIMBYs. > I personally passed over a 5,000 pound weight restricted bridge in a > vehicle that weighed over 78,000 pounds. Before someone gets smart, I > wasn't driving, and I couldn't convince the driver (who was my boss) > not to do it. There were two routes into the area. The long way was > on surface streets, mostly undeveloped and commercial zoned. The short > way was through residential streets and the last block or so included > the bridge. That's why I think it was NIMBYism, to keep the trucks > out of the residential area. The bridge is fine, BTW. It definitely > holds up to 78,000 pounds just FINE. ONCE. Your boss probably did 10 years or more of fatigue damage to that bridge. It was likely damaged in ways that will probably only turn up on an inspection. The bridge load rating is about what it can take in terms of hundreds of thousands or millions of loading cycles and not be damaged. The damage done by exceeding it is far worse than linear. Sure it didn't break, because you loaded it once. Do that just a few hundred times and you're probably sure to have a broken bridge. It's not the single loading, it's the repeated loading and unloading that leads to failure. Steel has what is known as a fatigue limit, it's far far less than it's ultimate stregth or even it's yield strength. If the stress remains below the fatigue limit the structure will last forever (minus environmental damage). The higher the stresses the fewer cycles the structure will last before it breaks. Take that 78,000 lb truck and drive it back and forth over that 5,000 lb rated bridge. You'll break that bridge. People aren't into building bridges that just last a couple years. They want them to last decades. There are some Roman bridges still in service. But I figure they keep the 78,000 lb trucks off them, even though they could probably handle one going over it once. > There are many roads that are INCONVENIENT to drive on with a heavy > truck. Either for the truck driver, or for others. But in > general...in the absence of some kind of bullshit NIMBYism law to > prohibit it, a heavy truck can go just about anywhere that a car can > go...with a competent driver behind the wheel. On or off road. I used > to pull flatbed, and often had to go mud-bogging through new > construction sites where the roads hadn't been built yet. With a heavy > loaded 18-wheeler. (!) -Dave Just because it worked once doesn't mean it can handle that sort of thing day in and day out.
From: hancock4 on 17 Oct 2009 21:28 On Oct 17, 8:50 am, "Dave C." <no...(a)nohow.never> wrote: > There are very few loads moving anywhere in the U.S. by any mode of > transport where both the shipper and consignee are near a railhead. Not true. Unit trains go from one large shipper to another large shipper direct. Both have rail yards. As mentioned, intermodal is direct and combines the best of both worlds, rail for the long haul and trucks for local delivery. > Not taking sides here Actually, it does seem that you're taking sides, especially when you suggest we can afford to subsidize roads but can't afford railroads: ". . . the money would be better spent on maintaining the roads . . ." > but I haven't actually seen a road not suitable > for a heavy truck in the last forty years of driving. Then you haven't looked very hard. There are many roads where the subbase is not able to support the weight of a large truck on a regular basis and thus are restricted by weight. There are a great many bridges that are restricted to automobiles or very light trucks only; some bridges even restrict big fat SUVs from crossing. Also, per the prior discussion, there are roads where the bridges are too low to support trucks passing by. In addition, per the prior discussion, big 53' trailers cause traffic congestion while they block traffic by trying to turn corners or into driveways too small for their size. > I personally passed over a 5,000 pound weight restricted bridge in a > vehicle that weighed over 78,000 pounds. Before someone gets smart, I > wasn't driving, and I couldn't convince the driver (who was my boss) > not to do it. There were two routes into the area. The long way was > on surface streets, mostly undeveloped and commercial zoned. The short > way was through residential streets and the last block or so included > the bridge. That's why I think it was NIMBYism, to keep the trucks > out of the residential area. The bridge is fine, BTW. It definitely > holds up to 78,000 pounds just FINE. Just because you didn't fall through does not mean the bridge is safe for heavy loads. The key is the repetition of heavy loads, the constant pounding and flexing adds up.
From: gpsman on 18 Oct 2009 01:05
On Oct 18, 12:24 am, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > I want ALL subsidies removed from ALL modes of > transportation. Instead of the government reaching into my pocket and > using my money to subsidize the trucking industry in the form of free > roads, I'll pay the same (or less) money in the form of higher > shipping costs. The reason it will probably be less is because when > private industry is in charge, there is a strong financial incentive > to maximize efficiency - an incentive that simply does not exist when > the government is in charge of roads. How much more efficiently can you imagine roads might be managed than the government does it by neglect? Efficiency: Providing the least for the most. The primary purpose of private industry is profit. It's as easy to charge a captive audience through the nose as it is to maximize efficiency. How do you think you might divide roads management among the many companies equipped to do the job that do not exist...? Who shall set and monitor the performance of those nonexistent companies? > In a truly free market, on a truly level field of competition, most > cost-effective mode of transport will will. They already have. Only an idiot or the remarkably ignorant would suggest what you do. ----- - gpsman |