Overdrive Magazine | Trucking Business News & Owner Operator Info
Issue link: https://read.dmtmag.com/i/324702
Voices 6 | Overdrive | June 2014 R esults from polling on Over- driveOnline.com show most readers favor the status quo on size and weight restrictions on the National Highway System. Polling followed news of congressional attention with lobbying from outside groups on the size and weight issue as legislators craft a highway bill. Size and weight changes went un- addressed in the Obama administra- tion's draft of a highway bill, released in late April. At press time, news of a Senate version of the bill held no mention of size/weight changes. Gordon Alkire, commenting under the below poll on Overdrive- Online.com, called raising single-unit nonpermitted legal weights or com- bination lengths a move that would benefit next to no one. "The increase to [the current limit of] 80,000 lbs. and longer trailers to 48 feet and then to 53 feet began to destroy our roads and bridges," he said. "The increase in taxes and licenses did not go to the road fund but everywhere else. Now if the weight is increased, is the increase in tolls and licenses and reg- istrations going to fund the additional repairs needed? Very doubtful." The only benefit, the owner-op- erator added, would go to fleets that could employ fewer drivers as a result. "Larger, heavier trucks will put some small carriers out of business," and any benefit to trucking otherwise would be so small "it will be barely noticed." Almost three in 10 respondents, such as this one, favored some kind of an increase: "I pull a three-axle step deck, and with all the equipment I have to carry, I have a tare weight of 35,000 lbs." A little extra weight would help the hauler out tremen- dously, he said. "I don't dare load anything more than 44,000 lbs. Most shippers are looking at shipping 48- 50,000 – this is what I need help on." Lynn Sweetwood: Heavy is what is tearing the roads up now. It would be brain-dead adding weight! Eric Chapman: Not everyone should haul heavier loads. Minimum experience should be required. … Then pay me. 53 foot is it. Any lon- ger will not be safe. Bret Stuchell: They will increase both, but it will not be good for us owner-operators. Our costs will go up, but revenue will stay the same. It's designed to break the little man, so I vote no to both. Ryan Harter: Of course the big companies' drivers will say no to it. Those who get paid by weight would love it. Edward Hodges: Is it cost-ef- fective? Grain haulers get paid per hundred-weight here. A standard five-axle truck can load 54,000 lbs. of product and be at 80,000 lbs. You go to a tri-axle trailer [to accommo- date added weight], you can now go to 92,000, but now your trailer is 4,000 lbs. heavier. Your net increase is 8,000, plus your trailer, new, will be about $12K-$15K more. Go to a full trailer and a pup, and you can get 70,000 across both trailers – the cost of two trail- ers is just that, twice the cost of one, plus now you're going to be running at 3.5 mpg. Now factor in state highways that are maxed at 80,000. If you have a tri-axle on that road, you're hauling less than a standard setup. To each his own. Have fun trying to alley-dock a 57- foot tri-axle. Bruce Kallenbach: No increase in the 53-foot length, but I [could get behind] increased weight with three axles on trailers, turnpike double units on the open roads and three- pup triple units to 105 feet on all open four-or-more-lane highways, but restricted to no operation in inclem- ent weather! Readers: 'No' to size/weight change No 67% Yes, more weight should be allowed 10% Yes, greater length, more trailers 3% Yes, both of the above 12% Yes, greater limits on length/weight should exist 5% Other 2% I don't know 1% Should National Highway System tractor- trailer size and weight limits be changed? OverdriveOnline.com poll Voices_0614.indd 6 6/3/14 11:05 AM