NEVADA new possible gross weight limit

[S. L. Schrader Co]

Talked with an officer from Nevada DOT today with some concerns about weight limits and how shippers overload and what to do. If you carry an empty weight ticket of your vehicle and are found to be overloaded on axles or gross and present a shippers document that clearly shows there is no way you could be over, The shipper has the opportunity to correct the problem at that point by paying all the fines and costs to shift or remove the load at the scale. If they choose not to they can be fined by DOT for false documentation and the load seized. Now a real kicker is since Nevada companies are lobbying that they can't make any money being restricted to the 80,000 gross the State has up for vote a new bill to allow for a new gross weight of 90,000 for Nevada alone. How in the hell is this going to work. We get loaded to 90,000 in Nevada is ok, but what if the load leaves the state. This will be a cluster F___

[GMAN]

It isn't going to do any good to put 90,000 on the truck if you can't leave the state. I don't recall much being hauled intrastate in Nevada. If the major trucking companies have their way, gross weights will be at or above 90,000 across the country. I think this is coming, but I don't really see it anytime in the near future. If they expect to haul that much weight we will need to add another axle or two.

[brian]

the only thing they haul intrastate in nevada is old prostitutes from the bunny ranch to street corners in vegas, not a well paying commodity imo

[Scoe]

You can haul 105,500lbs. in Nevada right now.

[S. L. Schrader Co]

Well if it gets to above 80, I won't be hauling much. With the roads in the shape they are in and I do understand only one bridge has fallen in MN in the past month, I am not sure what will these bridges will hold if we do increase the max gvw. I sure don't want to be sitting on the bridge at MO and IL on 55/70 with a string of 90,000# or more loaded trucks. That thing is old and rough now. After the I 35 bridge thing I did notice a lot more people with white hard hats looking bridges over. Makes me wonder. They are the ones that said our infrastructure is at the very best poor. How in the hell can you say it would be ok to up the max load limits if what we have now is questionable or even rated for this. Next thing we will have to have is 5 or more axle sleds like in MI. MI on the other hand from what I have seen on road repairs, puts down some serious concrete and base under it. In IL I have seen concrete that at its best would be 10 inches thick, this won't work. That is why we have to constantly keep refurbishing what we have. I know this will never happen, but it is time our government becomes accountable for what it does with our tax money.

Before they raise the weight limit any more the ATA better known as the American SHIPPERS ASSOCIATION better remember most of the brigdes in this country were designed for 73280 not 80K they throw 97K like they want to on them what happened in Minneapolis will be repeated time and time again.

[mike3fan]

I know this will never happen, but it is time our government becomes accountable for what it does with our tax money.

yep,that will happen..... :?

[Dispatch_This]

The mining industry has quite a bit of political clout in Nevada. The purpose for raising the weight limits is to lower costs for THEM. It has nothing to do with INTERSTATE transport. The mines require raw materials in bulk for processing ore which is normally shipped on INTRASTATE B-train pnuematic tanks . Most of their final product is then shipped out of state by rail.

[yoopr]

We're allowed around 165,000 in my state but you have to have the corresponding Axles to do it.
Just don't go into a surrounding state with it

[Ian Williams]

Every state has its industries with clout that shape regulations. Here in the Silver state its gaming and mining.

My barn has floating overweight permits for triples that allow us to have a set up to 105k.

If we had 3 axle Vans 90k would allow us to pile more product on the trailer from some of our customers that give us heavy freight. But thats just pulling the van back to the barn to break it out and reload it into pups for is destination.

It would also be helpful when pulling a set of doubles in state. With doubles and a single drive axle tractor you can be legal on every axle and 12k over gross; 26k with a twin screw tractor.

[Hat Rak]

We're allowed around 165,000 in my state but you have to have the corresponding Axles to do it.
Just don't go into a surrounding state with it

And that is why you have 15 axles, double trailers, and steers rated for 20k. (I don't know how you back those suckers up, but I've seen it done first hand, and right next to me, I might add!!)

What I hate to say but feel its important to mention is that the reason our bridges are of real concern is that there isn't the kind of money that could be put into them. We could build our roads (and our trucks) to handle waaaay much weight that we're putting on them, but the fact is, it would cost an insurmountable amount of money to make that happen. This is what we call "engineering," it is the compromise between structural integrity and the bottom line. How narrow of a margin do you want to create?

And when we construct our roads to be cheaper, we end up paying for it in the end by having to maintain them much more often than we have to.

[Ian Williams]

One of the old drivers I've met talks about how at one time the ruts in the road on I80 out by Winnemucca NV were so bad you could take your hands off the steering wheel and stay on the road.

There is also the problem of how transit funds from fuel taxes, tolls, etc are spent.

Politicos can score more "points" with their developer patrons by constructing new roads rather than maintaining the existing ones. They also get the ego polish of naming new roads after themselves, friends, family etc etc etc.

The benefits accrue to a select few while the costs are borne by the general road using public in slightly rougher roads.

As much as the industry loves to bash the Ton-Mile tax regime of Oregon it gets closer to matching the tax with the weight that most other schemes. However their tax regime by been subverted by in state interests (forest products) so that intra state carriers effectively pay a much lower rate than long haulers. It just barely passes Constitutional muster.

[GMAN]

Whether one state raises their maximum weights or not probably won't affect intrastate shipments. Each state has their own rules and regulations. While uniform, up to a point, there are some states which will allow more weight than others. The problem comes in when you cross the state lines. The adjoining state may have different weight requirements and could make you over weight in that state. I see this as more of an intrastate problem rather than interstate. I don't think this would affect most interstate carriers.