What do you think about a new lower load limit

[S. L. Schrader Co]

I have heard some rumors, and that may just be that. With the I 35 bridge failure and the lack of funds - ok miss appropriation of funds for our infrastructure. There was talk about lowering the maximum legal weight from 80,000 back to 73,280. This would in my opinion not be a bad idea. The shippers would then have to cut back on overloading and split a heavy load. That would put two trucks in service. More trucks, more jobs, less damage to the roads we have now that are not capable of what we can haul. This would cut costs of repairs to our highways that are not getting done correctly anyhow. In the conversation shippers cried about what the costs are now to get products moved and they would want a discount if they can't move the full load in one shot. I agreed some discount would be in store for the shippers who were honest, but on the other hand the shippers who load heavy and refuse to pay a reasonable rate would be forced to comply and pay a reasonable rate. We are changing some of our policies to we will only haul a weight that is agreed upon and anything above the contracted rate will be billed out to $2 per pound above and beyond the material weight. If overloaded we will offer the shipper to pay the price difference, remove the excess load amount, compensation of time used to correct the problem, or if told our services will not be used that we still collect the actual and original contract hauling amount whether or not we haul any product for the shipper as long as we went though all the possible corrections. If in the case the shipper refuses to comply in any way, we are now seizing loads and will have to let the courts handle this. We do have an advantage over some companies for the fact we have equipment that is capable of 80,000 to load and unload.

[Maniac]

There was talk about lowering the maximum legal weight from 80,000 back to 73,280.

While I wouldn't mind it, it would NEVER HAPPEN, ever.

The BIG companies want HIGHER weights and have been lobbying for quite a few years for it.

97,000 pounds on 6 axles is what they are toying with, and 57 foot trailer lengths.

The only good (if there is any)that comes out of this bridge collapse is that IF anyone mentions HIGHER weights they will have the door slammed in their face.

Me personally when I started hauling tankers in the late 70's we had a 40,000 pound mini, which meant ANY weight over that paid more, back then even with the 73,280 weight, the tractors were lighter and less complicated, I could regularly haul 42,000 pounds and STILL be legal.

73,280 gross weight, I'd only be able to legally scale 37,000 pounds, like I said OK with me as long as the rate doesn't drop.

[mike3fan]

where exactly will we all park at night?

good idea? yes

will it happen? nope

[GMAN]

I don't see us hauling lighter loads. These large carriers want to be able to haul heavier loads and more trailers. They grease too many palms to complete lose out.

[PackRatTDI]

Heavy weights aren't the problem with the bridges. It's age, design and maintenance. Properly balanced loads aren't harmful, no matter how heavy they are.

[countryhorseman]

Like has been said, truck axle weights are not the problem. The problem is our d%*$ politicians spending highway funds on crap other than highways and bridges. Kinda like the 2.5 million dollar jogging path in Ted Kennedy's neighborhood and other pork barrel projects. How bought the bridge and road to nowhere in Alaska, the bridge was stopped, but they are still building, what was it, a 4.5 million dollar dirt road to where the bridge was suppose to be. Repaving roads that do not need it, or paying a contractor to fix his own screw up.

Here is one, US69 in Oklahoma - they just widened and paved (fresh asphalt) a stretch, the area escapes me at the moment. And now they are putting about a 10 inch thick concrete slab over the fresh pavement, with no steel reinforcement in it. I can just imagine how long that will last! By the end of this coming winter it will be breaking apart.

Did you know, that per square inch of rubber on the road, per tire, that the average 80,000 pound tractor/trailer rig, exerts more than half the pressure on the road as the average SUV. Wish I could find that study link, it was very interesting.

Oh, by the way, US and Interstate highways will never see the lower gross weights per unit, add another axle or as several fleets like Walmart, wanting to run the double 48' or 53' trailers like a couple of states up north. Walmart has been doing research in Austalia and the land trains.

[allan5oh]

But trucks do cause more damage.

One truck does as much damage as something like 10,000 cars.

Ever been on the side of the road with trucks going 60+ mph? You can FEEL the ones that are heavy. The whole pavement moves.

[PackRatTDI]

But trucks do cause more damage.

One truck does as much damage as something like 10,000 cars.

Ever been on the side of the road with trucks going 60+ mph? You can FEEL the ones that are heavy. The whole pavement moves.

When the road is properly built, the weights aren't a problem. Look at Europe. Most European countries allow gross weights in the 96,000 lb range and build their roads much thicker to compensate.

[GMAN]

Politicians have been misappropriating highway funds for years. The result is that their infrastructure has suffered. If that is the case in Minnesota, then I think criminal charges and jail time is in order for the governor, representatives and individuals who are responsible. Just like in Pennsylvania. The governor wants to make I-80 a toll road. This was not legal until recently. It is getting more difficult to go around some toll roads in these areas. If I-80 is made a toll road, I will simply need to find another way to get around Pennsylvania. I think it is time to ask where all that money they have been collecting for highway funds and the toll road they already have has been going. Time to throw the governor and legislators in prison, who have stolen the highway funds.