Comments on: LARGER trucks??? http://www.thecompliancecenter.com/blog/2009/06/11/larger-trucks/ Hazardous Materials / Dangerous Goods Compliance Solutions Tue, 31 Jan 2012 21:29:53 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Jim Henry http://www.thecompliancecenter.com/blog/2009/06/11/larger-trucks/comment-page-1/#comment-2778 Jim Henry Mon, 15 Jun 2009 15:42:33 +0000 http://www.thecompliancecenter.com/blog/?p=137#comment-2778 John - thanks for your comments. I am still leary of allowing increased weights on trucks. It may be that the major organizations of your coalition are responsible corporate citizens, but it is the ones that put safety way down on their priority lists that scare me and the rest of the road users. John – thanks for your comments. I am still leary of allowing increased weights on trucks. It may be that the major organizations of your coalition are responsible corporate citizens, but it is the ones that put safety way down on their priority lists that scare me and the rest of the road users.

]]> By: John Runyan http://www.thecompliancecenter.com/blog/2009/06/11/larger-trucks/comment-page-1/#comment-2687 John Runyan Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:36:05 +0000 http://www.thecompliancecenter.com/blog/?p=137#comment-2687 Jim -- I'd like to respectfully offer a slightly different perspective. First, and most importantly, our coalition is not suggesting "bigger" trucks be allowed on the road. We would like to allow the use of six axle vehicles (on the same 53'maximum footprint used today) to carry heavier loads when and if the state and the US DOT determine that the particular interstate route is one that can accommodate the vehicle. We know of one large facility using 600 fully weighed out trucks going outbound each week that could trim that to 450 trucks per week if this six-axle configuration could be used. 150 fewer trucks per week leaving that facility (and delivering the same amount of product) would seem to offer terrific reductions in VMTs and fuel use. We have numerous studies as well as empirical evidence referenced on our coaltion website (www.transportationproductivity.org) that demonstrates the safety, environmental and economic benefits from using these vehicles. The last thing that the major organizations comprising our coalition would do is jeopardize their safety record. We are instead convinced this effort will improve that record and make US manufacturers more productive at the same time. By the way, most of the major companies in our organization are heavy users of the railroads. We are open to any good ideas you have on how to improve rail service options. Blocking improvements in trucking productivity, though, should not be among them. Jim — I’d like to respectfully offer a slightly different perspective. First, and most importantly, our coalition is not suggesting “bigger” trucks be allowed on the road. We would like to allow the use of six axle vehicles (on the same 53′maximum footprint used today) to carry heavier loads when and if the state and the US DOT determine that the particular interstate route is one that can accommodate the vehicle.

We know of one large facility using 600 fully weighed out trucks going outbound each week that could trim that to 450 trucks per week if this six-axle configuration could be used. 150 fewer trucks per week leaving that facility (and delivering the same amount of product) would seem to offer terrific reductions in VMTs and fuel use.

We have numerous studies as well as empirical evidence referenced on our coaltion website (www.transportationproductivity.org) that demonstrates the safety, environmental and economic benefits from using these vehicles.

The last thing that the major organizations comprising our coalition would do is jeopardize their safety record. We are instead convinced this effort will improve that record and make US manufacturers more productive at the same time.

By the way, most of the major companies in our organization are heavy users of the railroads. We are open to any good ideas you have on how to improve rail service options. Blocking improvements in trucking productivity, though, should not be among them.

]]>