Raising truck weights has some interesting conflicts. For one, they call Maine the "Black hole" of trucking in the Northeast due to the fact that neighboring states (NH, VT, maybe MA) and Canada allow 100,000lb trucks while Maine does not. But does this stop these trucks from coming into the State? No. You speak about our crumbling highways, have you ever taken Route 2 across Maine? Whether or not you have or have not, guess who does... 100,000lb trucks. I for one do support raising the highway weight because it would increase safety of drivers on secondary roads as well as decrease the maintenance on those routes. In the end, it costs taxpayers less to maintain highways then it does to upkeep old, twisty, hilly, and sharp curved roads.
Anyways, I'm not sure what all this has to do with the SLR so I'll end on a positive note... SLR seems to have another GP40 en route from B&PRR. This one is the 3009. Lewiston Junction seemed very active this morning with switch duties already underway (As usual).
Railroad Forums
St. Lawrence & Atlantic Railroad (SLR/SLQ)
- For discussion of the various Class II and III Lines of the Genesee & Wyoming Inc. Railroad Holding Co. short-lines which do not have their own forums as noted:
Their website is here: GWRR.com
A list of their holdings is here: Wikipedia List
by Mikejf
Correction Mr CN.
Maine does allow 100,000 pound trucks on our roads. Perfectly legal. Registered weight of 100,000 pounds is on 6 axles instead of the standard 5 for 80,000 ponds. Where the weight issue is lies on the Federal Interstate Highway system. These roads are designed for those loads but due to the feds, can not be used, and the road is limited to 80,000 pounds, unless permitted through the state for an oversize load. All state highways, unless otherwise posted, and including the Maine Turnpike, are good for 100,000 pounds.
So the issue has been for years that the heavier trucks operating on 6 axles are essentially sent on to local roads north of the Augusta exit 113.
Now before the argument comes up that these loads should be shifted to rail, I'm guessing 99% of these loads are all short haul of 200 miles or less. Fuel oil, construction equipment/material, logs or wood related material make up the bulk of what is being transported. Route 2 is a very heavy Wood related travelled road. Wood chips, logs, paper. All in 100,000 pound trucks.
Mike
Maine does allow 100,000 pound trucks on our roads. Perfectly legal. Registered weight of 100,000 pounds is on 6 axles instead of the standard 5 for 80,000 ponds. Where the weight issue is lies on the Federal Interstate Highway system. These roads are designed for those loads but due to the feds, can not be used, and the road is limited to 80,000 pounds, unless permitted through the state for an oversize load. All state highways, unless otherwise posted, and including the Maine Turnpike, are good for 100,000 pounds.
So the issue has been for years that the heavier trucks operating on 6 axles are essentially sent on to local roads north of the Augusta exit 113.
Now before the argument comes up that these loads should be shifted to rail, I'm guessing 99% of these loads are all short haul of 200 miles or less. Fuel oil, construction equipment/material, logs or wood related material make up the bulk of what is being transported. Route 2 is a very heavy Wood related travelled road. Wood chips, logs, paper. All in 100,000 pound trucks.
Mike
by gokeefe
miketrainnut wrote:Correction Mr CN.It's probably worth mentioning here that Senator Collins was able to have a pilot program instituted for one year (I believe from DEC 2009 to DEC 2010) that allowed 100,000 GVW loads to travel the length of I-95 in Maine. To her great disappointment the pilot program expired and she has been (thus far) unable to get it extended or reimplemented.
Maine does allow 100,000 pound trucks on our roads. Perfectly legal. Registered weight of 100,000 pounds is on 6 axles instead of the standard 5 for 80,000 ponds. Where the weight issue is lies on the Federal Interstate Highway system. These roads are designed for those loads but due to the feds, can not be used, and the road is limited to 80,000 pounds, unless permitted through the state for an oversize load. All state highways, unless otherwise posted, and including the Maine Turnpike, are good for 100,000 pounds.
So the issue has been for years that the heavier trucks operating on 6 axles are essentially sent on to local roads north of the Augusta exit 113.
Now before the argument comes up that these loads should be shifted to rail, I'm guessing 99% of these loads are all short haul of 200 miles or less. Fuel oil, construction equipment/material, logs or wood related material make up the bulk of what is being transported. Route 2 is a very heavy Wood related travelled road. Wood chips, logs, paper. All in 100,000 pound trucks.
Mike
gokeefe
by Cowford
"I for one do support raising the highway weight because it would increase safety of drivers on secondary roads as well as decrease the maintenance on those routes. In the end, it costs taxpayers less to maintain highways then it does to upkeep old, twisty, hilly, and sharp curved roads."
Perhaps you can explain how a heavier truck is safe and, leaving aside the fact that some road traffic would divert to the interstate, how it would decrease maintenance on roads?
"Anyways, I'm not sure what all this has to do with the SLR..."
Plenty... if you consider the uncertain future SLR faces even with road weights the way they are.
I'd be ok with heavier trucks with on caveat: A general increase in fuel taxes substantially above the $0.56/gallon truckers are paying now in Maine. Think of it: truckers contribute a paltry $.09 for road maintenance and repair for every mile driven.
GO'K, as I stated earlier, Collins, et al haven't given up. Draft legislation is being debated in committee now.
Perhaps you can explain how a heavier truck is safe and, leaving aside the fact that some road traffic would divert to the interstate, how it would decrease maintenance on roads?
"Anyways, I'm not sure what all this has to do with the SLR..."
Plenty... if you consider the uncertain future SLR faces even with road weights the way they are.
I'd be ok with heavier trucks with on caveat: A general increase in fuel taxes substantially above the $0.56/gallon truckers are paying now in Maine. Think of it: truckers contribute a paltry $.09 for road maintenance and repair for every mile driven.
GO'K, as I stated earlier, Collins, et al haven't given up. Draft legislation is being debated in committee now.
by CN9634
Mike: Thank you for the additional information.
Cowford: Would you rather have a 100,000lb truck on our secondary roads where people walk, bike, and drive under 65 or off on the highway?
Why don't we take a look outside of Maine and see how other states do it. Highways are built differently then secondary roads and are designed with better curvature and higher tolerances.
Would you rather pay to do maintenance on a certain stretch of secondary road every year for the same reason, or a certain stretch of highway every 5?
Without getting too deep into the politics, I've been working closely with some folks a campaign to raise awareness of this issue. I appreciate any and all information or personal testimonies anyone has. If you would like, I have a few I can share myself.
The SLR is competing for completely different traffic than traffic that is being discussed here. And most highway hauls on 95 are actually more than 200 miles. There are a lot of loads (highway) coming out of SAPPI, NEPW, LP&T and others that are destined for places like Lancaster, PA and Waycross, GA. Also there are some heading to Springfield, MA (Wonder why...). This traffic is nothing the SLR would ever see unless it was NEPW or potentially New Page heading west.
Cowford: Would you rather have a 100,000lb truck on our secondary roads where people walk, bike, and drive under 65 or off on the highway?
Why don't we take a look outside of Maine and see how other states do it. Highways are built differently then secondary roads and are designed with better curvature and higher tolerances.
Would you rather pay to do maintenance on a certain stretch of secondary road every year for the same reason, or a certain stretch of highway every 5?
Without getting too deep into the politics, I've been working closely with some folks a campaign to raise awareness of this issue. I appreciate any and all information or personal testimonies anyone has. If you would like, I have a few I can share myself.
The SLR is competing for completely different traffic than traffic that is being discussed here. And most highway hauls on 95 are actually more than 200 miles. There are a lot of loads (highway) coming out of SAPPI, NEPW, LP&T and others that are destined for places like Lancaster, PA and Waycross, GA. Also there are some heading to Springfield, MA (Wonder why...). This traffic is nothing the SLR would ever see unless it was NEPW or potentially New Page heading west.
by Cowford
CN, why don't you start by looking up truck accident rates in Canada vs US. Canada has universally higher axle loading limits. You'll be surprised at how much higher accident rates are.
If you think the SLR would not be negatively affected by such a national rule change, you're kidding yourself.
If you think the SLR would not be negatively affected by such a national rule change, you're kidding yourself.
by CN9634
Just because you see a trailer on the road doesn't mean it's a load that's eligible to be hauled by rail. The SLR is a railroad the works with trucking companies and not against them. Because of their route this is how they have to operate to make profit. SLR's primary competitor is Pan Am not the trucking companies. I'm not saying that this won't affect them but in reality this is a bigger threat to Pan Am then SLR. I'm not exactly sure if you work within the industry or not but if you have some insight that I don't, I wouldn't mind to be enlightened.
by Mikejf
We had a very similar discussion over on the Mountain Division thread. Rail shipment works for the longer haul. That is where the savings comes in. Unless you have a customer that ships point to point on the same rail line, short haul shipping by rail is more costly and time consuming by rail.
Truck weights for the long haul trucks are at the standard 80,000 pounds. Raising the limits for the Interstate system in Maine will not harm the local railroads. Increasing them country wide may.
As for accident rates, I would be interested in seeing those. While bringing those up, also include the traffic count for the area. More traffic means more accidents. And the type of road. Interstate, state highway, local road. The accident rates for the 100,000 pound trucks right now are more on the state and secondary roads because they are no longer allowed on the interstate system, other than the Maine Turnpike.
Truck weights for the long haul trucks are at the standard 80,000 pounds. Raising the limits for the Interstate system in Maine will not harm the local railroads. Increasing them country wide may.
As for accident rates, I would be interested in seeing those. While bringing those up, also include the traffic count for the area. More traffic means more accidents. And the type of road. Interstate, state highway, local road. The accident rates for the 100,000 pound trucks right now are more on the state and secondary roads because they are no longer allowed on the interstate system, other than the Maine Turnpike.
by CN9634
While I don't speak on behalf of the Senator, here is part of our campaign.
"It is our intention to raise weight limits on Maine's highway system to increase safety on our secondary roadways as well as decreasing wear and tear on the same infrastructure.
Here are studies that support our cause:
A detailed analysis by Wilbur Smith Associates, completed in 2004, considered impacts on Maine’s entire transportation system. The study estimated a savings of $1.0 to $1.7 million per year in pavement rehabilitation costs and more than $300,000 in annual bridge maintenance and rehabilitation savings if the federal weight exemption currently in place on the Maine Turnpike were to be extended to all of Maine’s Interstate Highways.
A 2004 Wilbur Smith study noted that the crash-rate experience of five- and six-axle combination trucks was seven to ten times higher on Maine’s non-Interstate highways than on the Maine Turnpike, which is currently exempted from federal weight limits
Allowing the use of loaded six-axle combination trucks on the Interstate would increase payloads by nearly 35 percent over that carried by the five-axle combination truck, thereby reducing the number of trucks needed to transport given levels of commodity and reducing the overall impact on Maine’s transportation infrastructure
According to the ATRI report, a comparison of a vehicle with a gross vehicle weight (GVW) of 100,000 pounds over two different routes (an Interstate route versus a state highway route) identified trip-level fuel efficiency improvements, measured in miles per gallon, of 14 to 21 percent when traveling over the Interstate route. Trip-specific emissions were also estimated to decrease by 6 to 11 percent for carbon dioxide (CO2) and 3 to 8 percent for particulate matter (PM) and oxides of nitrogen plus non-methane hydrocarbons (NOx + NMHC) over this route
Correlating the ATRI findings with the 2004 Wilbur Smith study results in a potential daily savings of approximately 194 gallons of fuel, a reduction of 2 metric tons of CO2 emissions and reductions of 60 pounds of NOx _NMHC emissions "
Hampden to Houlton, Maine
Interstate vs. Secondary Road Comparison
Using a six-axle semi-trailer with GVW of 99,800 lbs
Route 2 (secondary road) | I-95
Total mileage 121 | 122
Travel time 2 hours 55 minutes | 2 hours 05 minutes
Intersections 270+ | 32 controlled-access ramps
Traffic Lights 30 | 0
Cross walks 86 | 0
Driveways 3,000+ | 0
School crossings 9 | 0
From http://new.bangordailynews.com/2011/01/ ... -priority/
Senator Collins: "Collins said her favorite example drew comparisons between a truck traveling on U.S. Route 2 versus one traveling on Interstate 95 from Hampden to Houlton. First, the interstate would save the trucker 50 minutes and an estimated $30 in fuel costs. Second, the truck trav-eling on secondary roads would encounter nine school crossings, 30 traffic lights and 86 crosswalks."
"Despite widespread support across Maine, easing the federal truck weight limits has considerable opposition from national highway safety groups and the powerful railroad industry lobby."
From http://www.maine.gov/tools/whatsnew/ind ... rticle2011
"According to national statistics, 82 percent of commercial vehicle fatalities occur on non-Interstate roads. By allowing heavier trucks on the limited-access Interstate, the traffic is removed from towns and cities and smaller roads, where they pose a greater risk.
Moving heavy traffic to the Interstate is also expected to reduce wear-and-tear on Maine’s secondary roads and reduce bridge and pavement repairs by as much as $2 million per year."
"It is our intention to raise weight limits on Maine's highway system to increase safety on our secondary roadways as well as decreasing wear and tear on the same infrastructure.
Here are studies that support our cause:
A detailed analysis by Wilbur Smith Associates, completed in 2004, considered impacts on Maine’s entire transportation system. The study estimated a savings of $1.0 to $1.7 million per year in pavement rehabilitation costs and more than $300,000 in annual bridge maintenance and rehabilitation savings if the federal weight exemption currently in place on the Maine Turnpike were to be extended to all of Maine’s Interstate Highways.
A 2004 Wilbur Smith study noted that the crash-rate experience of five- and six-axle combination trucks was seven to ten times higher on Maine’s non-Interstate highways than on the Maine Turnpike, which is currently exempted from federal weight limits
Allowing the use of loaded six-axle combination trucks on the Interstate would increase payloads by nearly 35 percent over that carried by the five-axle combination truck, thereby reducing the number of trucks needed to transport given levels of commodity and reducing the overall impact on Maine’s transportation infrastructure
According to the ATRI report, a comparison of a vehicle with a gross vehicle weight (GVW) of 100,000 pounds over two different routes (an Interstate route versus a state highway route) identified trip-level fuel efficiency improvements, measured in miles per gallon, of 14 to 21 percent when traveling over the Interstate route. Trip-specific emissions were also estimated to decrease by 6 to 11 percent for carbon dioxide (CO2) and 3 to 8 percent for particulate matter (PM) and oxides of nitrogen plus non-methane hydrocarbons (NOx + NMHC) over this route
Correlating the ATRI findings with the 2004 Wilbur Smith study results in a potential daily savings of approximately 194 gallons of fuel, a reduction of 2 metric tons of CO2 emissions and reductions of 60 pounds of NOx _NMHC emissions "
Hampden to Houlton, Maine
Interstate vs. Secondary Road Comparison
Using a six-axle semi-trailer with GVW of 99,800 lbs
Route 2 (secondary road) | I-95
Total mileage 121 | 122
Travel time 2 hours 55 minutes | 2 hours 05 minutes
Intersections 270+ | 32 controlled-access ramps
Traffic Lights 30 | 0
Cross walks 86 | 0
Driveways 3,000+ | 0
School crossings 9 | 0
From http://new.bangordailynews.com/2011/01/ ... -priority/
Senator Collins: "Collins said her favorite example drew comparisons between a truck traveling on U.S. Route 2 versus one traveling on Interstate 95 from Hampden to Houlton. First, the interstate would save the trucker 50 minutes and an estimated $30 in fuel costs. Second, the truck trav-eling on secondary roads would encounter nine school crossings, 30 traffic lights and 86 crosswalks."
"Despite widespread support across Maine, easing the federal truck weight limits has considerable opposition from national highway safety groups and the powerful railroad industry lobby."
From http://www.maine.gov/tools/whatsnew/ind ... rticle2011
"According to national statistics, 82 percent of commercial vehicle fatalities occur on non-Interstate roads. By allowing heavier trucks on the limited-access Interstate, the traffic is removed from towns and cities and smaller roads, where they pose a greater risk.
Moving heavy traffic to the Interstate is also expected to reduce wear-and-tear on Maine’s secondary roads and reduce bridge and pavement repairs by as much as $2 million per year."
by Cowford
"Despite widespread support across Maine, easing the federal truck weight limits has considerable opposition from national highway safety groups and the powerful railroad industry lobby."
CN, with regard to safety and the potential effect on railroads, isn't this telling?
Listen, I totally understand (and agree) with the argument that moving heaver trucks off local roads to limited-access highways IS in the interest of safety. (Back when LCP was open in Orrington, ME, they used to run heavy trailers of hyrdrochloric acid to MA, and would exit the Maine Turnpike to drive down Rt 1 in Kittery because of the interstate weight laws). But beware of unintended consequences: (1) The argument that this will reduce truck traffic is specious. Higher weight limits will diminish the advantage of shipping by rail and shift more traffic to truck, negating any "efficiency-based" volume reduction, and (b): Trucks don't come close to paying their fair share of road cost. Allowing for heavier trucks will only increase that gap. If you ran a lemonade stand and were serving 16oz portions at a loss, would you resolve the issue by increasing the size to 22oz and keeping the price the same???
CN, with regard to safety and the potential effect on railroads, isn't this telling?
Listen, I totally understand (and agree) with the argument that moving heaver trucks off local roads to limited-access highways IS in the interest of safety. (Back when LCP was open in Orrington, ME, they used to run heavy trailers of hyrdrochloric acid to MA, and would exit the Maine Turnpike to drive down Rt 1 in Kittery because of the interstate weight laws). But beware of unintended consequences: (1) The argument that this will reduce truck traffic is specious. Higher weight limits will diminish the advantage of shipping by rail and shift more traffic to truck, negating any "efficiency-based" volume reduction, and (b): Trucks don't come close to paying their fair share of road cost. Allowing for heavier trucks will only increase that gap. If you ran a lemonade stand and were serving 16oz portions at a loss, would you resolve the issue by increasing the size to 22oz and keeping the price the same???
by Hamhock
Here's a completely insane question... instead of raising the weight limit from 80,000 to 100,000 lbs. on interstate highways in Maine in order to get the heavier trucks off local roads, why not just ban > 80,000 trucks from local roads instead?
by toolmaker
Hamhock wrote:Here's a completely insane question... instead of raising the weight limit from 80,000 to 100,000 lbs. on interstate highways in Maine in order to get the heavier trucks off local roads, why not just ban > 80,000 trucks from local roads instead?It's a good idea to me too. It is up to each state to implement the practice and if they receive federal dollars for state and local road maintenance they could run into a problem with the feds for accepting the funding.
Of course the 100,000 lbs truck has to reach the interstate to begin or end the trip so a permit system might be required to get the big units from dock to highway.
-gary
“If practice makes perfect, and if nobody's perfect, why practice?"
“If practice makes perfect, and if nobody's perfect, why practice?"
by Mikejf
This is getting way off topic but banning 100,000 pound trucks will only hurt everyone. The state will not be able to get the added income from the boosteron the registration, the extra 20,000 pounds not moved will need to go onto another load, which will mean an extra load eventually. This will result in higher costs overall. And this would be everything from water to fuel to paper. All of your delivery trucks and department store trucks still ship in 5 axle trucks. Fuel is generally delivered on 6 (100,000).
by bigfreight
Trucks are can already haul up to I believe 110000 lbs on 6axles in ME,NH.VT Ma,RI as long as they are certified for the enhanced weight by the state they reside in and register for the additional weight. Also they can only travel on 2 lane roads in Me Vt and NH . No interstates. I believe they can travel on interstates in Ma and RI.